CWP No. 17252 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 17252 of 2011 Date of decision:- 15.09.2011 Jagdish Chander Aggarwal ...Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Central Administrative Tribunal, Sector 17, Chandigarh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Jaideep Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. PERMOD KOHLI J.(Oral) This petition arises out against the order dated 16.5.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh whereby the O.A. filed by the petitioner has been allowed without interest on the amount of salary awarded by the Tribunal. Briefly stating the facts leading to the present petition are that the petitioner and one Murari Lal Meena applied for mutual transfer to the respective Zonal Head Quarters. Their representation was accepted and they were allowed to swap their positions. The petitioner was relieved from the office of respondent No.4 on 27.5.2003. He reported on duty to the place of transfer on 28.5.2003 in the office of respondent No.5. He was, however, not permitted to join on the ground that before relieving no prior permission was obtained from respondent No.2. Subsequently, it was clarified that such approval was there for transfer of the petitioner and Murari Lal CWP No. 17252 of 2011 -2- Meena. Accordingly, Murari Lal Meena, at whose place the petitioner was to join was relieved from the office of respondent No.4 and petitioner was allowed to join on 30.6.2003. The petitioner was denied salary for the period from 1.6.2003 to 30.6.2003 on the plea that it was a 'Waiting Period' and cannot be treated as being on duty. The petitioner has filed O.A. No.746/PB/2008, which was withdrawn with liberty to challenge the order dated 18.6.2004 whereby the petitioner was denied the salary for the aforesaid period. In view of the liberty granted the petitioner filed second O.A., which was disposed of. The Tribunal has accepted the plea of the petitioner and a direction has been issued for the payment of salary for the period of 01.6.2003 to 30.6.2003. Though interest claimed by the petitioner has been declined. We do not find that the order suffers from any illegality to this extent. Another contention raised by the petitioner that the period of 01.6.2003 to 30.6.2003 has not been regularized. Respondent No.5 has treated this period as 'Waiting Period'. In any case this period has not been treated as being absent from duty or leave. In view of the direction of the Tribunal, for payment of the salary for this period, it is deemed to be regularized. With this clarification, the writ petition is disposed of. ( PERMOD KOHLI ) JUDGE September 15, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE