K.J. Sengupta, J. - (1.) I have had the advantage of going through the draft judgement of the Learned Brother. While agreeing with His Lordship's findings and ordering portion of the judgment I wish to supplement the same with my own words in the manner as follows : The fact of the case has been exhaustively recorded by His Lordship. The point involved in this matter is whether the applicant before us is entitled to get the benefit of being treated as on duty from 12th April, 1985 till 30th November, 1987 and for the period from 3rd December, 1987 to 7th August, 1989. On 12th April, 1985 the petitioner obtained interim order of injunction against the respondents from giving effect to the transfer order in his writ petition being CO. No. 6078 (W) of 1985. This interim order continued and no appeal was preferred till 30th November, 1987 when the said writ petition, on being transferred, was disposed of holding that the transfer order was valid. By order dated 30th November, 1987 learned Tribunal while upholding the order of transfer directed the respondents to make payment for the period spent by the applicant during the aforesaid period of interim order. The respondents appealed against the direction passed by the learned Tribunal for making payment. The Supreme Court allowed the S.L.P, holding that the direction given by the learned Tribunal is hot lawful as it was not within its jurisdiction to. pass such order. This S.L.P, was allowed on 12th July, 1989. The petitioner thereafter resumed his office at Hyderabad as P.R.O. on 7th August, 1989. The petitioner was also promoted to the post of the Assistant Passport Officer through U.P.S.C. and then he retired from service from Hyderabad office on 31st January 1992, but the period during which the interim order was subsisting was not treated as spent on duty by the Department. So he moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court for clarification and or modification of the order dated 12th July, 1989. The Hon'ble Supreme Court passed an order directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner.
(2.) It seems to us because of the two orders of the aforesaid Supreme Court the learned Tribunal held that there is no scope for regularization of the aforesaid period treating the petitioner as having spent on duty.
(3.) In order to decide the aforesaid question I feel that two thorny issues are involved : Whether on dismissal of the lis the effect of the interim order comes to an end with retrospective effect or not ? In this case order of injunction was passed and for violation of the order of injunction contempt application was initiated and in spite of that the respondent authority did not allow in breach of the order of injunction to resume duty.;