1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5103/02 Dr. Nand Kishore Choudhary vs. Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal & Ors. Date of order : 2/2/2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Anand Sharma for the petitioner. Shri Zakir Hussain, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. ****** Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 7.12.2001 to the extent not treating the period served by the petitioner on duty with the respondents from 15.5.01 to 26.6.01 as spent on duty and with the prayer that the respondents be directed to pay the salary to the petitioner for the aforesaid period. Shri Anand Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner initially challenged before the Tribunal the order of his transfer dated 29.11.2000. His earlier appeal was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to make representation before the respondents. Subsequently, when he filed a 2 representation, that representation was rejected by the respondents by order dated 24.4.2001 (Annexure-1). Petitioner had to again approach the Tribunal which by order dated 10.5.01 stayed the operation of the order of transfer. Pursuant to such order, the petitioner joined at the old place of posting on 12.5.01 and continued to work there till 14.5.01. The officer-in-charge of the Community Health Centre, Rani District Pali where the petitioner was working retrained the petitioner from joining duty and refused to comply the stay order passed by the Tribunal so much so that he even locked chamber of the petitioner, thus making it impossible for him to join the duties. The petitioner thereafter continued to visit the office from 16.5.01 to 26.6.01, but when nothing was done, he was constrained to file contempt petition before the Tribunal and it was thereafter only that the respondents on 27.6.01 allowed the petitioner to discharge his duties. Ultimately, the order of transfer was quashed and the appeal was allowed by order dated 7.12.2001 but no specific direction 3 has been given with regard to the aforesaid period. Shri Zakir Hussain, the learned Additional Government Counsel submitted that the petitioner was absent from duties from the period from 15.5.01 to 26.6.01 and the Tribunal was therefore justified in not granting any relief for the aforesaid period. The writ petition be therefore dismissed. On being specifically asked, the learned government counsel was not in a position to inform this Court whether order of Tribunal dated 7.12.01 has been challenged. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this order was never challenged by the respondents and has attained finality. The order of transfer has thus been held illegal and which is why the petitioner was allowed to continue at the place of his old posting. The respondents however in para 5 of the reply to writ petition have stated that the petitioner in absence of the authorised officer / Doctor In-charge forcibly marked his attendance on 12th and 14.5.01, but they have not given any categorical answer to the 4 plea that the petitioner was physically present there. In the face of this and the fact that petitioner had to file contempt petition and thereafter he was allowed joining on 27.6.01, stand of the respondents cannot be accepted. Their assertion that petitioner was absent from 12.5.01 to 26.6.01 also cannot be accepted. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to treat the period of service rendered by the petitioner as spent on duty for all purposes including for grant of salary. Compliance of the judgment be made within 2 months from the date copy of this judgement is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/