SISIR KUMAR DUTTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though several reliefs have been prayed for at the time of hearing, they have been confined to the prayers 'c' and 'd' as on 31st January, 2001 petitioner attained the age of superannuation. The prayers 'c' and 'd' read as under;

(2.) Facts to the extent relevant for purposes of enquiry in the matter on hand are as under.

(3.) The petitioner had joined as Deputy General Manager (Purchase) under National Textile Corporation (W.B.A.B.O.) hereinafter referred to as respondent corporation on 7th January, 1981. He served the respondent corporation in various capacities during his tenure of service. It is the case of the petitioner that he became entitled to be considered for promotion in the post of General Manager on completion of his three years as Deputy General Manager. According to the petitioner, he was entitled to such promotion to the aforesaid post of General Manager in the year 1984. However, petitioner was not promoted while according to the petitioner several persons including some direct recruits were granted such promotions including Sri S.K. Saha, S.N. Tripathi and several others who are said to be juniors to the petitioner were appointed. The petitioner had been transferred which according to him was a defunct unit at Gaya and was asked to report for his duties even without being allowed joining time therefor on 1st July, 1995. The petitioner made an application for availing of the joining time from 3rd of July to 10th July, 1995 and came to Calcutta. During his stay at Calcutta, petitioner fell ill and sought extension of medical leave. According to the petitioner, he came to know that his leave for the period from 11.7.95 to 10.9.95 was duly sanctioned. On 5th December, 1995, the petitioner received a letter dated 27th November, 1995 asking the petitioner to appear before a Medical Board on 11th December, 1995 at 10.30 a.m. According to the petitioner, there is no provision of law whereby the petitioner could be compelled to appear before the Medical Board. The petitioner states that left without any choice, petitioner was compelled to tender his resignation from the service of the corporation by a letter dated 6th November, 1995 recording therein his specific grievances as the reasons behind taking the aforesaid decision for such resignation. In reply, the petitioner was informed by a letter-dated 16/24th November 1995 that his resignation could not be accepted on the ground of contemplated disciplinary action against him.