Sh. Ramesh Kumar vs Varinder Kumar and Ram pal

Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The complaint is that order dated 27.9.2006 in O.A. No. 2959 of 2006 has not been complied with. There is also a grievance that the petitioner has suffered civil consequences as well on account of the conduct on the part of the respondents. The petitioner challenged Annexure A-3, order of transfer and Annexure A-4, order of relieving from Govt. High School, Shekhal, Tehsil Rohru, as produced in the OA. As per the order referred to above which is Annexure A-1, the matter was directed to be considered by the Director within six weeks and till such time the operation of the impugned transfer order and relieving order was stayed by the Tribunal. According to the petitioner, though he reported before the 1st respondent, he was not permitted to join duty. It is the stand of the 1st respondent that the petitioner had not served a copy of the order passed by the Tribunal on 27.9.2006 when he reported for duty, but it is seen from the reply that the petitioner had sent the order by registered post and admittedly the same had been received by the first respondent. It is submitted that he had been finally permitted to join duty only on 20.12.2006 and the period between 12.9.2006 to 20.12.2006 has not so far been regularised. Consequently, he has suffered the following consequences:

i) No salary paid for the period;

ii) Benefit of ACP has not been granted;

iii) Dearness allowance not paid.

There are other grievances as well.

The 1st respondent has tendered unconditional apology and the 2nd respondent apart from the apology has also submitted that he was on leave during that period. Having regard to the stand taken by the respondents and having regard to the apology tendered through the learned counsel for the respondents in Court, we are of the view that it cannot be said that there is any contumacious conduct on their part. But on account of the compulsory waiting period, the petitioner shall not suffer any civil consequences. There was a valid order of stay by the Tribunal covering the period. In order to give a quietus to the whole dispute, there shall be an order to regularize the period between 12.9.2006 to 20.12.2006 as follows:

i) The period from Annexure A-4, relieving order dated 12.9.2006 to 30.9.2006, when the registered post has been apparently received by the respondents, shall be treated as leave of the kind due. Needless to say that in case there was earned leave available to the credit of the petitioner as on that date, the same shall be adjusted against that leave, and if not, against leave not due. Needless also to say that when the leave is thus adjusted, the period shall be treated as duty for all purposes.

ii) The period from 30.9.2006 to 20.12.2006 shall be treated as compulsory waiting period and the petitioner shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits, treating it as duty for all purposes.

iii) The order in the light of the above directions shall be passed by the Director within a month from the date of production of a copy of this order by the petitioner before the Director. The Director shall also pass consequential orders with regard to the grievances of the petitioner referred to above.

iv) Eligible benefits shall be disbursed to the petitioner within another two months and, if not, the petitioner will be entitled to interest @12% from the date of the order passed by the Tribunal, namely, 27.9.2006 and the officers responsible for the delay will be personally liable for the same.

Subject to the above, the COPC (T) is dismissed. Rule is discharged.