In the light of the above, let an affidavit be filed by the Director General, News Service Division, AIR, Akashwani, New Delhi for failure to appear in the court despite directions given by this court vide orders dated 10.01.2014 and 21.02.2014. A..

In the light of the above, let an affidavit be filed by the Director General, News Service Division, AIR, Akashwani, New Delhi for failure to appear in the court despite directions given by this court vide orders dated 10.01.2014 and 21.02.2014. Affidavit shall be filed within a period of three weeks. The court is also appalled to find that no prompt steps were taken by the said department to file reply to the review petition as the same is still not on record. Let the counsel take steps to place the said reply on record before the next date of hearing. Rejoinder, if any, be filed by the applicant within a period of four weeks. List this matter for final disposal on 23rd May, 2014. 

Needless to say, the competent authority will now only examine as to whether the petitioner should get full pay and allowances for the suspension period, and not, revisit its order which, inter alia, directs reinstatement of the petitioner and reg..

Needless to say, the competent authority will now only examine as to whether the petitioner should get full pay and allowances for the suspension period, and not, revisit its order which, inter alia, directs reinstatement of the petitioner and regularization of the said period, for the purposes of pensionary benefits. 12. The competent authority before passing the order would issue notice to the petitioner calling upon him as to whether he would want to have a say in the matter. After hearing the petitioner, the competent authority will be free to pass an order; albeit in accordance with law. Since the acquittal of the petitioner took place as far back as in 2009, the competent authority would expedite the hearing in the matter and pass an appropriate order in the matter. 13. The writ petition is thus allowed, in the aforesaid terms. The necessary consequences of this would be that order dated 04.04.2011 will also fall by the wayside. The said order, is also, accordingly, quashed.

Insofar as the plea of discrimination qua Mr. Kiran Pal is concerned, I find, no such plea was taken in the claim petition except a bald averment that a workman junior to the petitioner is continuing in the department without naming him. In the ab..

Insofar as the plea of discrimination qua Mr. Kiran Pal is concerned, I find, no such plea was taken in the claim petition except a bald averment that a workman junior to the petitioner is continuing in the department without naming him. In the absence of any specific averment and the name of the person so engaged, no relief could have been granted by the Industrial Tribunal. That apart, it has been observed by the Industrial Tribunal in its order dated May 02, 2013 as under: “The anagement witness has stated in his cross-examination that one Sh. Kiran Pal been continued in service. He was in freezing department whereas the workman was in the Battery Department. Sh. Kiran Pal was trainee technician and he was in deferent department, so his services have been retained. He was working at the time of this workman”. In view of the aforesaid observation of the Industrial Tribunal, even the last plea of the petitioner is unsustainable. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The same is dismissed.