1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION W.P. NO. 6089 OF 2004 Sat Prakash Ramniwas Tyagi ..Petitioner Vs. Union of India and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr. V.S.Gokhale Adv. i/b V.H.Shingnapurkar Adv. for Petitioner Ms. Neela Masurkar Adv i/b Mr.U.S.Masurkar Adv. for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. Mr. H.V.Mehta Adv. with Mr.R.C.Master Adv. for Respondent No.1 .... CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE : JULY 3, 2009 P.C.: 1. This writ petition has been filed in the backdrop of the following facts: The Petitioner was serving as Junior Telecom Officer in the department of Union of India. When he was compulsory retired on 17th August, 1995, he filed departmental appeal which was rejected by order dated 4th August, 1997. During this period, he was facing criminal charge and he was acquitted by competent court on 15th March, 1996. Thereafter, he filed an application before the appellate authority which had rejected its appeal to review its earlier order as he had been acquitted. The review was neither rejected nor accepted for a long time and petitioner approached the Tribunal and filed Original Application No.501 of 1998 which was decided by the Tribunal and the matter was remanded back to the appellate authority to consider the matter afresh. Review was rejected on 10th December, 1998. 2 The petitioner went again to the Tribunal by virtue of Original Application No. 600 of 2000. This Original Application has been dismissed, therefore, this petition has been filed. This Original Application was dismissed on a short ground that since the department had been transformed into a Corporation and as such, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction over the matter. The Tribunal noted that: “In this Original Application, the applicant is a permanent employee of MTNL, who has opted for permanent absorption in that Organization and accordingly, he seeks relief in this case against the said Organization. After the formation of MTNL, no Notification has been issued by the Government in terms of Section 14(2) of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, bringing the Organization under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The O.A. is therefore, not maintainable for lack of jurisdiction. It is accordingly, dismissed and the applicant is advised to seek his relief before the appropriate forum ”. 2. We are told at the bar that by a Notification, MTNL Mumbai has been brought within the purview of the Central Administrative Tribunal. As such, we remand the case back by setting aside the Tribunal ’s earlier order. After remand, the Tribunal may now decide the matter on merits. 3. Writ petition is disposed of. [ BILAL NAZKI,J. ] [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]