DIRECTOR Vs. VISHWESHWAR DUBEY & 2

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsels for the parties. The petitioner, who happened to be the respondent- former employer of the respondent no.1 hereinabove in O.A. No. 92/2011 in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, has approached this court by way of this petition challenging the order and judgment dated 16.11.2011, whereunder, the Tribunal has, while allowing the O.A. Issued directions for considering the case of the petitioner i.e. respondent no. 1 hereinabove for granting him benefits of pay fixation etc. based upon his resignation to be treated as one governing Rule 26(2) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.

(2.) The brief facts of the case as could be culled out from the petition would indicate that the respondent no. 1 joined the services of Prasar Bharati with effect from 26.9.1998 as Assistant Engineer. While he was serving as such in the petitioner organization, he applied for the post of Jr. Telephone Control Officer under BSNL- respondents no. 2 and 3 hereinabove through proper channel on 27.9.2005. On 4/6.9.2006, the respondent no. 1 was selected. The respondent no. 1 was to resume his duty and join new assignment in the organization of respondents no. 2 and 3, he requested for being relieved and submitted his application for such release, which was taken on record and he was permitted to be relieved provisionally, pending decision on his application for being treated as technical resignation, which ultimately came to be turned down and it was communicated to him under communication dated 29.4.2010 that his resignation was treated as resignation under Rule 26(1) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, meaning thereby, the resignation was entailed forfeiture of his past services rendered in the petitioner organization. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said communication, respondent no. 1 approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench way of filing O.A. No. 92/2011, inter alia, contending that the petitioner before the Tribunal had followed all the procedure of making application to the BSNL and when it was treated his application through proper channel, there was no ground for not treating the relieve application being technical resignation so as to entitle him to reckon his services rendered with the Doordarshan i.e. the petitioner before this Court. The Tribunal, while allowing the O.A. Issued directions, which could be well set out by reproducing the para-12 and 13 hereinbelow:

(3.) The petitioner i.e. former employer of respondent no. 1 felt aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said direction, preferred the present petition challenging the said order and directions.