UNION OF INDIA Vs. MAFU DHUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Mr.Ravi Karnavat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. M.S.Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. In the first round of litigation, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad that he was medically de-categorised but no posting order was issued for alternative appointment.

(2.) HE filed O.A.No. 201 of 2002 with M.A.No. 491 of 2003 before the the Tribunal alleging that the order of the Tribunal has not been complied with and he has not yet been given alternative appointment nor the petitioners have regularised intervening period. According to the petitioners, the respondent failed to report for duty and sent an application for accepting voluntary retirement. Since the respondent failed to report for duty, therefore, the petitioners did not issue any posting order as earlier directed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has, by the impugned order dated 12.9.2003 accepted the claim of the respondent and has directed that the posting order in favour of the respondent be issued at the earliest within 15 days so that the respondent may join the post and the petitioners were further directed to regularise the period of posting of the respondent as per the direction of the Tribunal. The petitioners challenged the order of the Tribunal dated 12.9.2003 by filing a review application no.47 of 2005 with M.A.No. 567 of 2005 and M.A.No. 568 of 2005 in O.A.No. 201 of 2002. The review petition has been dismissed by the Tribunal on 17.10.2008.