SCA/308620/2003 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3086 of 2003 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD Sd/- HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Sd/- ============================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? 1 to 5 NO ============================================= = JERAMBHAI MOHANBHAI - Petitioner(s) Versus UNION OF INDIA & 1 - Respondent(s) ============================================= = Appearance : MR PH PATHAK for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR MUKESH A PATEL for Respondent(s) : 1, MR RM VIN for Respondent(s) : 2, ============================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Date : 22/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA) 1. The petitioner has challenged the judgment dated SCA/308620/2003 2/3 JUDGMENT 21.02.2003 of the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby application of the petitioner is rejected as not maintainable. Original grievance of the petitioner was in respect of the order dated 15.09.1984 whereby it was decided under the provisions of Rule 2044-A(2)-R.II to treat his intervening period from 03.06.1978 to 29.07.1982 as period not spent on duty and to pay him 60% of the full pay and allowance to which he would have been entitled had he not been removed from service. The grievance against that order was based upon reading of the final orders in Regular Civil Suit No.147 of 1975 and Regular Civil Suit No.550 of 1979 which were disposed on 01.02.1977 and 30.04.1982 respectively. By the first judgment, the order of removal of the petitioner from service was held to be illegal and he was held to be entitled to recover Rs.5,648/- from the respondent as arrears of salary. And, by the judgment and order dated 30.04.1982, it was declared that the orders dated 03.06.1978 and 10.01.1979 of the respondent were illegal and void and it was declared that the petitioner was in continuous service. It was thereafter that, upon consideration of the representation of the petitioner, the aforesaid order dated 15.09.1984 was made and, as submitted by learned counsel Mr.Pathak, continuity of service was denied resulting into loss in pay and pension to the petitioner. 2. The original application of the petitioner is dismissed by the Tribunal on the grounds of limitation and on account of being not maintainable. It was seen from the record that, even after orders in his favour in the civil suits filed by the petitioner in the years 1975 and 1979 and the order dated 15.09.1984 denying part of the benefits as alleged, the petitioner did not pursue his remedies in that regard till 1997 when he SCA/308620/2003 3/3 JUDGMENT approached the Tribunal. Therefore, obviously, the petitioner had ignored injustice, if any, for about 13 years. Even while reiterating his grievances before this Court, the petitioner could not substantiate his argument as to how the order dated 15.9.1984 was illegal or not in consonance with the rule mentioned therein. As against that, learned counsel Mr.Vin, appearing for the respondent, submitted that Rule 2044-A, which was subsequently incorporated in Rule 1343 (F.R.54), was applicable and it authorised the competent officer to make appropriate order with regard to treatment of the period during which an employee was not on duty due to dismissal or removal. He also submitted that the order of the Civil Court declaring the service of the petitioner to be continuous was not affected by the departmental order contained in the memo dated 15.09.1984, which order, in any case, was not challenged by the petitioner. Mr.Vin relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Jaipal Singh [2003 (9) SCALE 366] and State of Punjab v. Buta Singh [1995 Supp (3) SCC 684. 3. In the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any substance in the petition or any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed and Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Sd/- ( Bhagwati Prasad,J.) Sd/- ( D.H.Waghela, J.) (KMG Thilake)