N RANGASAMY Vs. DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsels appearing for the parties. The petitioner had filed O.A.No.3906 of 2003 for reguarisation of his service period from 26.7.1999 to 7.1.2001 as eligible leave and from 8.1.2001 to 16.5.2002 as compulsory wait by quashing the order dated 9.9.2002. The petitioner, who was working as Head Constable had been deputed to Secretariat. Subsequently, he went on medical leave from 26.7.1999 and he had applied for extension of medical leave by enclosing a Doctor's certificate and by sending the same through Registered Post to the Secretariat. However it appears in the meantime, the police department had passed an order recalling him from Secretariat by order dated 25.9.2000. The case of the petitioner is that such order dated 25.9.2000 had never been served. No material is produced by the respondent to come to any different conclusion. Thereafter the petitioner reported for duty before the Secretariat on 8.1.2001, which is apparent from the letter available at page 3 of the typed set. However the Secretariat authorities did not permit the petitioner to rejoin as in the meantime the order dated 25.9.2000 had been issued recalling the petitioner to his parent department.

(2.) THE petitioner feeling aggrieved, rushed to the State Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.646 of 2001 wherein he contended that there was no justification to repatriate him to the parent department. THE case of the petitioner was also to the effect that though he had reported for duty before the Commissioner, no formal order had been passed permitting him to rejoin duty. Be that as it may, the Tribunal dismissed O.A.No.646 of 2001 by observing that there was no illegality in repatriating the petitioner to the parent department. At that stage, the petitioner filed W.P.No.5033 of 2001. THE said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 16.3.2001. THE High court while disposing of the writ petition passed the following order:-

(3.) THE applicant seems to have some grievance against the respondent State and according to him, only because of the respondent State, he was not able to join earlier, because of which, he has sustained monetary loss, apart from losing other service benefits. We give liberty to the applicant to make a detailed representation supported by documents, if any, within a period of four weeks from today, before the Commissioner of Police, Chennai. Once such representation is received, the Commissioner of Police shall consider and dispose of the claims made therein, within a period of eight weeks thereof. With the above observation the contempt application is closed." Subsequently, in accordance with such observation by the High Court, the petitioner filed a detailed representation indicating the facts and circumstances. THEreafter an order was passed on 9.9.2002, which was challenged before the Tribunal. In the said order dated 9.9.2002, the Commissioner of Police had treated the period from 26.7.1999 to 15.12.2000 as medical leave; from 16.12.2000 to 7.1.2001 as eligible leave including EOL, from 8.1.2001 to 21.9.2001 as eligible leave including EOL; from 22.9.2001 to 4.10.2001 as duty period and from 5.10.2001 to 16.5.2002 as eligible leave including EOL. 4. THE petitioner is aggrieved by the above order so far as it relates to the period between 8.1.2001 and 21.9.2001 and the period between 5.10.2001 and 16.5.2002 and filed O.A.No.3906 of 2003. THE Tribunal, however, did not interfere with the order passed by the Police Commissioner and the original application was dismissed. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, the fact that the petitioner has been repatriated to the parent department was never made known to him before 8.1.2001. This aspect has not at all been considered by any of the authorities nor there is any material to indicate that the order of repatriation was actually served on the petitioner. Moreover it appears that after the petitioner reported for duty in the Secretariat on 8.1.2001 no subsequent order of posting was given and that too in spite of the direction given by the High Court. Ultimately when the contempt application was moved, a stand was taken that a revised posting order was issued on 21.9.2001. However nothing has been indicated anywhere as to why the posting order was not immediately given after it was made known by the petitioner that no posting order had been served. In such view of the matter, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the period between 8.1.2001 and 21.9.2001 should be treated as compulsory wait.