UNION OF INDIA Vs. JAYESH V GAJJAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by Union of India through Chief General Manager, Department of Telecommunication. This is primarily to keep this writ petition in consonance with the title of the Transfer Application No.4 of 2011 which has given rise to the impugned judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad. In fact, however, the proceedings are pursued by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short, 'BSNL'), which was carved out from the erstwhile Department of Telecommunication. Petitioner has challenged the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad dated 8th August, 2013 in following background.

(2.) RESPONDENT herein was appointed to the post of Technician at Anand under Department of Telecommunication on 10.12.1982. He submitted his resignation on 23.3.1985 which was accepted by the Competent Authority on 28.3.1985. On and around 14.5.1985, he made an application to the authorities to allow him to withdraw the resignation and to be continued in the services of the Department of Telecommunication. On 1.1.1986, on such application, the Department passed an order which reads as under:

(3.) THE employee yet did not take any further legal steps till the year 2003 when for the first time, he approached Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad by filing original application. It appears that at that time, BSNL was not notified as one of the authorities under Section 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act as one of the authorities over which the Tribunal would have jurisdiction. We are informed that therefore, the Tribunal disposed of original application holding that Tribunal has no jurisdiction. The employee, therefore, filed Special Civil Application No.10059 of 2004. In the meantime, since BSNL was notified as authority under Section 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, such petition was transferred before the Tribunal in terms of Section 29(2) of the said Act and numbered as T.A.4/2011. Prayer of the employee was for a direction to the Departmental authorities to treat the petitioner in continuous service from the date of initial appointment and for granting all consequential benefits flowing therefrom. He had also prayed for a declaration that the decision of the Department not to count his services from an initial stage as continuous for granting service benefits and treating break in service as illegal.