Decided on September 14,2007

C.B.S.E. Respondents


MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, CJ. - (1.) This appeal arises out of the order dated 5th October, 2001 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of the writ petition filed by the appellant. Counsel appearing for the appellant has drawn our attention to the relief portion of the writ petition which reads as under:- "(i). to issue appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent to recall the order dated 9.7.2001 treating the period mentioned in the said order as dies non; (ii) to issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to consider leave applications of the petitioner to sanction extraordinary leave for the periods for which he had applied for leave and the period has been ordered to be treated as 'dies non' and to pay to the petitioner the allowances admissible to him during such leave; (iii) issue appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to pay salary and other consequential benefit to the petitioner for the period of 31.7.2000 to 7.9.2000 and 19.2.2001 to 18.7.2001 when despite the petitioner submitting fitness certificate, he was not allowed to resume duties (and this period too has been treated as 'dies non' vide order dated 9.7.01; (iv) to issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to constitute departmental promotion committee to consider the petitioner for promotion w.e.f. the date his junior was promoted and to give him consequential benefit; (v) to issue directions directing the respondents to reimburse the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner on his treatment under the rules applicable to him; (vi) to issue direction to the respondent to allot appropriate seat/place for work to enable the petitioner to discharge his duties to the best of his abilities keeping in view his status and the fact that 5 Section Officers and 40 other staff members report to him; and pass any other or further orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
(2.) As a matter of fact the first three reliefs which are sought for are inter-connected and arise out of the memo dated 9.7.2001 issued by the respondent. According to the learned counsel for the appellant he is challenging para 5 of the said memo, that the alleged unauthorised absence for the period from 28.3.2000 onwards till he resumed his duty shall be treated as dies-non. It is further brought to our notice by the counsel for the respondent that disciplinary proceeding were initiated against the appellant and on conclusion the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment of 'compulsory retirement' upon the appellant.
(3.) Being aggrieved by aforesaid order of compulsory retirement the appellant has filed a Civil Suit which is pending. However, against the Memo dated 9th July, 2001, the appellant filed Civil Writ Petition No.6099/2001, which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 5th October, 2001. The said order dated 5th October, 2001 is subject matter of the present appeal.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.