HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No.3556 of 2003 DATED 27th September, 2011 BETWEEN G.Venkatachalam …….Petitioner and Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and ors ……Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 3556 of 2003 ORDER: While the petitioner was working as a constable in the respondent-Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Unit, BHEL, Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad, by order dated 30.06.1998 of the second respondent, he was transferred to CISF Unit, ONGC, Nazir, Assam State. Questioning the said transfer order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition NO. 19147 of 1998. This Court at the stage of admission on 24.7.1998 granted interim stay if no substitute was posted in his place by then. Pursuant to the said interim order, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents on 19.9.1998. No action had been taken thereon by the respondents. In the meanwhile, the said Writ Petition was dismissed as infructuous on 3.9.1998. Questioning the order dated 3.9.1998, the petitioner filed Writ Appeal No. 1719 of 1998, which was disposed of by judgment dated 30.10.1998 giving liberty to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation seeking retention at Hyderabad and the respondents shall consider and dispose of the same. Pursuant to the order, the petitioner submitted detailed representation on 20.11.1998 by joining duty at Nazir, Assam State for regularization of the period from 16.7.1998 to 19.11.1998 as on duty with all consequential benefits. However, the respondents rejected the said representation by order dated 23.12.1998. Against the said rejection order, the petitioner filed a representation to the second respondent. The fourth respondent vide his order dated 24.7.2000 rejected the claim of the petitioner. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that pursuant to the interim stay granted by this Court on 24.7.1998 in WPMP.No. 22847 of 1998 in Writ Petition No. 19147 of 1998, the petitioner could not report for duty at new station within the permissible period. He further submitted that apart from the above, the petitioner also filed Writ Appeal and the Division Bench of this Court directed the petitioner to make a detailed representation ventilating his grievance with regard to transfer and directed the respondents to consider the same. The learned Counsel argued that the respondents ought to have regularized the absence period as per the orders of this Court once he report for duty at new station. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents while reiterating the counter averments submitted that the petitioner on his reporting to duty at Nazir, Assam State has submitted an application on 20.11.1998 requesting to regularize his unauthorized absence period from 16.7.1998 to 19.11.1998 as on duty or leave or any suitable order. The respondents considering the request of the petitioner, regularized the unauthorized absence period as per his leave credit being mentioned in his service book i.e. 16.7.1998 to 30.9.1998 as 77 days earned leave and from 1.10.1998 to 19.11.1998 as 50 days Extra Ordinary Leave and from 1.7.1998 to 15.7.1998 as permissible period for reporting to duty at new station. It is further stated that the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 22647 of 1998 against the transfer order after duly drawing the TA/DA advance and taking movement order dated 30.6.1998 to leave CISF Unit, at BHEL, Hyderabad to CISF Unit at Nazir, Assam State and failed to report to duty at new station. It is contended that the petitioner without any prior intimation or obtaining permission from the competent authority unauthorizedly overstayed from joining period from 16.7.1998 to 19.11.1998 and remained absent to his duties. He therefore sought dismissal of the Writ Petition. As seen from the record, it is manifest that that the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 22647 of 1998 against the transfer order after duly drawing the eligible TA/DA advance and taking movement order dated 30.6.1998 to leave CISF Unit, at BHEL, Hyderabad to CISF Unit at Nazir, Assam State. As such the interim stay granted by this Court on 24.7.1998 in WPMP.No. 22847 of 1998 in Writ Petition No. 19147 of 1998 does not come to the rescue of the petitioner to regularize his unauthorized absence from 16.7.1998 dt 19.11.1998 as on duty or leave etc. It may be noticed that the unauthorized absence cannot be regularized as on duty under any rules. Further, the act of receiving the movement order dated 30.6.1998 and duly drawing the eligible TA/DA advance would clearly show that he is reporting to duty at new station immediately after the expiry of joining time. However, the petitioner failed to do so and thought it fit to challenge the transfer order before this Court in Writ Petition No. 19147 of 1998 suppressing the fact that he withdrew the eligible TA/DA advance. In view of this kind of conduct exhibited by the petitioner, he does not deserve the relief as prayed for. However, the CISF authorities were perhaps liberal in regularizing the period of absence owing to overstay by the petitioner on the premise of pursuing the litigation before this Court by granting Earned leave and extra ordinary leave. Viewed from any angle and as no other grounds are urged, I see no merit in the Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 27th September, 2011 Msnro