P D CHAUDHURY Vs. DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri. Supehia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he is not pressing this petition for any other prayers, except to that of receiving salary for the months from January 1995 till 31st July 1995 which has remain unpaid. Shri. Supehia submits that this salary be paid to the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, making grievance that he was abruptly repatriated under the order dated 26/12/1994 to his parent department and that order was not sent to the parent department at all. The petitioner was on tour and in the meanwhile the concerned respondent no.2 took over charge of the post unilaterally, therefore the petitioner was constrained to address communication after returning back from his tour on 3/1/1995. This communication was addressed to the Director of Tribal Welfare Department, the authority who in fact transferred and repatriated the petitioner. Petitioner also sent reminder on 18/4/1995 and again on 8/6/1995. The repatriating authority sent letter to the petitioner through the respondent no.2, the officer concerned, calling upon his explanation as to why he has not reported to his parent department. Thereafter it appears that the petitioner was posted as Sr. Lecturer in District Education & Training Center, Surat by the Dy. Director, Education. This order was passed on 3/8/1995. In that letter it is shown that the petitioner was posted as Sr. Lecturer, District Education & Training Center, Surat, from his post and center i.e. Ashramshala Officer, Surat. This letter is not withdrawn and this is therefore enuring till date. The petitioner submits that he has been left out without any salary for the interregnum period.

(3.) Shri. Supehia submitted that the order repatriating him was passed in hot haste and without appreciating the attending circumstances. The order repatriating him had never been received by the petitioner. The order of repatriation which has now come on record go to show that copy of the order was sent to Director, Primary Education, Gandhinagar. It deserves to be noted that the petitioner had never belonged to the office of Primary Education. He actually was serving in Commissionerate of Higher Education and therefore, this order can not be said to have validly been received by his parent department, i.e. Commissionerate of Education. Shri. Supehia has therefore submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the salary for the period from January 1995 to July 1995.