IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 144 of 2003 (S/B) 1. Union of India through Chie General Manager Telecommunication (W), Dehradun 2. General Manager, Telecommunication Denradun …..Petitioners Versus 1. Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench, Allahabad 2. Triveni Prashad S/o Shram Ram Naresh Under SDE (Fault Repair Centre) Telephone Exchange, Patel Nagar Dehradun ……..Respondents Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Standing Counsel (Central) for the petitioners. I.P. Gairola, learned counsel for the respondents. Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, a writ in the nature of certiorari has been sought for quashing the judgment and order dated 25.11.2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad (Annexure-5) in original application No. 123 of 1997 Triveni Prashad Vs Union of India. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that Triveni Prashad respondent No. 2 in the writ petition was initially engaged as casual labour on daily wages w.e.f. 10.12.1985, however, he was disengaged w.e.f. 15.08.1987. Respondent No. 2 Triveni Prashad was however, further engaged on 01.12.1991 as he filed a case No. 121 of 1989 against his removal and the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi gave an award in favour of the respondent No. 2 Triveni Prashad on 08.03.1991 allowing his claim. 3. After the award allowing the claim of the respondent No. 2 dated 08.03.1991 by the Central Government Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi and his reinistatement in service w.e.f. 01.12.1991, an application No. 123 of 1997 was preferred by him before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad for seeking a 2 relief that he should be regularized w.e.f. 01.12.1985 on the post of Mazdoor. It was contended by respondent No. 2 that the period of break in service w.e.f. 15.08.1987 i.e. date of removal till the date of his reengagement i.e. 01.12.1991 should be condoned for all purposes as he was reengaged in service in pursuance of the award passed by the Tribunal. 4. The aforesaid application filed by respondent No. 2 was agitated by the petitioner on the ground that respondent No. 2 was disengaged on 15.08.1985 was taken back in service on 01.12.1991 and this period from the date of removal from the service till the reinstatement is more than one year, as such, it cannot be condoned. It was also contended that this period couldn’t be counted towards seniority and for the purpose of his regularization. 5. The Central Administrative Tribunal, after hearing the rival contention of the parties and having perused the material placed on record was pleased to allowed application No. 123 of 1997 vide order dated 25.11.2002. The learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad also directed the respondents to consider the case of Triveni Prashad for regularization after taking into account his service rendered by him w.e.f. 10.12.1985. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order, the Union of India has preferred the writ petition before this Court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad is non- speaking one and is in violation of the provision of law. 9. We find no substance in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 10. The record reveals that the respondent No. was engaged in service on 01.12.1985 and his service were terminated on 15.08.1987. Thereafter, he was further reinstated in the service on 3 01.12.1987 in pursuance of the award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the period from the date of the removal of the service till the date of his reinstatement was rightly condoned by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad. the Central Administrative Tribunal has rightly observed that the said period should be taken into consideration for the purposes cannot be taken as a break especially under the circumstance when the respondent No. 2 was reinstated in the service in pursuance of the Tribunal’s award. 11. We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Central Administrative tribunal, Allahabad. learned counsel for the petitioners also could not show any ground on which it can be said that the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal has been passed in violation of any provision of law. The impugned order does not call for any interference by way of the Article 226 of Constitution of India and it is hereby confirmed. 12. We do not find any merit in the writ petition and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) (P.C. Verma, J.) 22.08.2005 NRSA