1 R.L.Meena vs. The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Ors. (D.B.Civil Special Appeal (W)No.236/08) Date of Order:- 24.09.2008. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr.Kuldeep Mathur, for the appellant Mr.Vijay Bishnoi, for the respondent. Heard counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against order dated 30.1.08 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in his writ jurisdiction, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition was dismissed. The writ petitioner-appellant, who was working on the post of Divisional Engineer (Planning) in the office of General Manager, Telecom (GMT), District, BSNL, Bhilwara, filed the writ application with a prayer to direct the respondents BSNL to allow him the benefit of Industrial Dearness Allowance(hereinafter referred as “IDA”) pay upgradation pursuant to memorandum dated 15th July,07 w.e.f. 1st October, 04. The learned Single Judge of this Court in view of the pleading of the parties, however, held that the claim of the writ petitioner was not sustainable particularly, when he was facing 2 disciplinary inquiry. It is undisputed that the charges against the writ petitioner were partly proved, however, the disciplinary authority dropped the proceedings on the ground of formation of Telecommunications Wing of the aforesaid department as a Company namely, BSNL w.e.f. 1.10.2000, and thus the President ceased to be the disciplinary authority. In that view of the matter, it observed that due to formation of the Telecommunications Wing, the BSNL authority would be the competent disciplinary authority to proceed in the matter. We are informed by the learned counsel for BSNL that now charges have been framed and inquiry officer has been appointed and in view of the pendency of the proceeding against the writ petitioner-appellant, his claim could not have been allowed and rightly therefore, the writ application was dismissed. In view of the pendency of the inquiry proceeding the claim of the petitioner was premature and thus the writ application was dismissed. Having heard counsel for the parties and on appreciation of facts, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. This appeal 3 accordingly is dismissed. However, it will be open for the writ petitioner-appellant to raise these questions on conclusion of the disciplinary inquiry in case adverse decision is taken. (SANGEET LODHA),J. (NARAYAN ROY) CJ. Aditya/-