IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11576 of 2000 Between: Scientific Adviser to Ministry of Defence and Director General DRDO, New Delhi and another. ..... PETITIONER AND S.K. Mahadev .....RESPONDENT(S) HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY W.P.No.11576 of 2000 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) This writ petition is filed assailing the order dated 02-11-1999 passed in T.A.No.14 of 1988 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity ‘the CAT’), wherein the application filed by the respondent herein was allowed setting aside the order of termination dated 02-01-1978 issued by the petitioners herein. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The respondent was appointed as T.M. Machinist on temporary basis under the administrative control of the 2nd petitioner herein and while so, his services were terminated by proceedings dated 02-01-1978, in pursuance of the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed T.A.No.14 of 1988 before the CAT and the CAT, relying on the judgment of this Court in W.A.No.157 of 1980, allowed the said T.A. by order dated 01-06-1989 setting aside the order of the termination. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed S.L.P.No.12672 of 1989 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Supreme Court allowed the said S.L.P. holding that 1st petitioner, Director of D.R.D.L. is competent to terminate the temporary services of the respondent and remanded the matter to the CAT, Hyderabad, to dispose it on merits. Pursuant to the said remand order, on 02-11-1999, the CAT allowed the T.A. directing the petitioners to reinstate the respondent into service forthwith. The CAT further directed that the period of absence of the respondent i.e. from 02-01-1978 till the date of reinstatement shall be regulated as per the Rules and he is entitled to all consequential benefits. In the said order the CAT observed that the officiating director of the D.R.D.L. was not competent to terminate the services of the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. 3. On 01-08-2000, this Court, while admitting the writ petition, granted interim suspension of the impugned order dated 02-11-1999. 4. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. 5. The learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for the petitioners, submits that though the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the CAT to decide the application on merits, the CAT, without considering the merits of the case, allowed the application mainly on the ground that the officiating director has no power to terminate. He further submits that in fact, subsequent to the passing of the impugned order, the CAT, also considered a similar case in T.A.No.2 of 1994 (W.P.No.4260 of 1982) filed by one C. Krishna, wherein, his services were also terminated on similar ground by order dated 02-01-1978, which is the same date of impugned order in the present T.A.No.14 of 1988, and in the said case, the CAT, while quashing the impugned order, issued certain directions. However, the learned Assistant Solicitor General, on instructions, suggested that instead of setting aside the order of the CAT and remanding the matter to the CAT, the similar directions as directed in T.A.No.2 of 1994 may be issued in the instant writ petition also. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the termination order dated 02-01-1978 passed by the 2nd petitioner. The petitioners are directed to reinstate the respondent, if he reports duty on 07-09-2009, along with a copy of this order. The period i.e. from the date of removal of service, as per the termination order dated 02-01-1978, till the date of his reinstatement, has to be taken into consideration for fixation of his pay as on date for the purpose of seniority and for calculation of pension and pensionary benefits. Further, the respondent has to be paid salary and other emoluments from the date of his reinstatement. More so, the case of the respondent has to be considered for promotion, if his junior was already promoted, however, the same shall be subjected to the result in the examination that has to be conducted for the promotion. If he succeeds in the first attempt, he has to be given notional promotion from the date on which his junior, in the higher grade, was promoted and the monetary benefits have to be paid from the date of his joining i.e. 07-09-2009. No order as to costs. _____________________ JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH ___________________________ 13th August 2009 JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY Kvr