ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A): MA No.3474/2023 By way of this MA filed on behalf of the applicant under Rule 12 (6) of the Central Administrative (2) Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 read with Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the applicant has prayed for seeking amendment in OANo.1020/2022.

2. The applicant has filed the aforesaid OA seekingquashing of the order dated 21.10.2019 of the Respondent No.2 which is pending for adjudication before this Tribunal. It is submitted that the applicant, in the said OA, has not specifically challenged theorder dated 20.07.2012 passed by the Lieutenant Governor, Delhi (Respondent no. 1) to the extent that the Respondent no.1 has ordered that "the period of absence from duty up to the date of reinstatement, consequent upon this order, will not be treated as spent on duty" which is an inadvertent lapse. It is pertinent to mention here that the Applicant hadalready challenged the order dated 20.07.2012 passedby the Respondent no.1 vide OA no. 995/2013 before this Tribunal. However, the said OA was withdrawn by the applicant in view of subsequent developments and the applicant was granted liberty to file a fresh OA for redressal for said grievances.

(3)

3.The impugned order dated 21.10.2019 was passed by the Respondent No.2 pursuant to therepresentation dated 24.08.2018 of the applicantemanating from the order dated 20.07.2012 of theRespondent no.1 which is the main order. The said representation was partly turned down to the extent that his request to treat him on duty was not accededto and the said impugned order dated 21.10.2019 was communicated to the applicant by the Respondent No.

2.

4. The applicant has averred that the said orderdated 21.10.2019 is a consequential order of the orderdated 20.07.2012 and, therefore, it is necessary toimpugn both the order dated 21.10.2019 and20.07.2012 of the Respondent no. 1 to the extent referred to above.

5. As stated earlier, the applicant had challengedthe said order dated 20.07.2012 earlier in his OA no. 995 of 2013 which was withdrawn due to subsequent developments that took place, with liberty to approach this Tribunal again, if grievance still survived.

6. The applicant has submitted that for appreciation of the relief of seeking amendment of the present OA (4) through this Miscellaneous Application before this Tribunal, the developments that took place in between filing of the OA no. 995 of 2013 and the withdrawal of the said Application with liberty to file fresh OA, if the grievances persisted, in brief, are as under:

i) On the basis of the aforesaid order dated20.07.2012 of the Respondent no. 1, the Respondentno. 2 in between passed the order dated 19.10.2012 reinstating the applicant in the service of DDA with immediate effect.

ii) The said order was followed by an order dated17.07.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Personnel), DDA regularizing the period ofsuspension/dismissal/absence w.e.f. 27.05.1998 to21.10.2012 (i.e. 14 years 4 months and 25 days) but treating the said period as not spent on duty. The saidorder dated 17.07.2013 also stated that the past service rendered by the applicant before suspension/ dismissal/ absence period will not be forfeited.

iii). The said order dated 17.07.2013 issued by the Commissioner (Personnel) was withdrawn by orderdated 14.08.2018 by the Respondent no. 2 and in the same order, the applicant was issued show cause notice regarding the period of suspension/dismissal/absence w.e.f. 27.05.1998 to 21.10.2012 which was treated under the term of "not spent on duty" and as per the rule on the principle of "no work no pay." (5) iv) Pursuant to the liberty granted by the Respondent no. 2 vide the aforesaid order/show causenotice dated 14.08.2018, the applicant submitted hisrepresentation on 24.08.2018 praying that his period of suspension be regularised as spent on duty and he be granted consequential benefits as otherwise it will adversely affect his fixation of pay, se