BURN STANDARD CO LTD Vs. TARUN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against an order of a learned single Judge dated 22nd December, 1995 passed in C.R. No. 19272 (W) of 1984. The learned single Judge by the said order, inter alia, directed that the writ petitioner should be deemed to be in service with effect from 23rd May 1984, but could be allowed to earn salaries from 22nd October, 1984 as Deputy Manager, Accounts (Project) in the appellant No. 1 Company. The writ petitioner it is pertinent to note, reported for work on 22nd October, 1994 and allegedly have been assured by the Chief of Personnel and Administration that he would be treated to have join his duty on and from 22nd October, 1994. Since the petitioner in spite of the aforesaid factual position and in spite of having reported for duty every day was not allowed to join nor any salary was being paid and since all his attempts including by serving demand of justice prove abortive and because of his release by the previous employer, was compelled to move an application for writ praying amongst others for writ of Mandamus directing the respondents, the appellants herein, not to interfere with or restrain him in joining his office and for payment of full salary with effect from 22nd October, 1984, in terms of his letters of appointment dated 23rd May, 1984 and also 18th September, 1984.

(2.) Before us on behalf of the appellants, in substance the only point which has been very strenuously urged is that since the petitioner did not render any service in the appointed post till the date of his appointment in terms of an order of this Division Bench on 16.5.1997 (actual joining having been made on 19.5.1997), he could not be said to be entitled to any salary for the period 22nd October, 1984 to 18th May, 1997. There is no dispute that the petitioner was not allowed to join though the appellants sought justification for their action on the basis of specific preventive orders passed against the appellants by this court in different proceedings and/or refusal of permission to the appellants to allow the petitioner to join.

(3.) The relevant orders which had been relied upon on behalf of the appellants may be detailed as follows :-