V.KAMESWAR RAO, J. - (1.)THE present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated July 21, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (the Tribunal) in Original Application No.981/2007 and order dated November 04, 2009 in Review Application No.201/2009, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application and Review Application filed by the petitioner.
(2.)THE brief facts are that the petitioner superannuated as Senior PET under the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi. He filed Original Application No.2099/2002 claiming full pay and allowances for the period from February 01, 1984 to September 14, 1989 and from September 01, 1995 to April 07, 1999. During the pendency of the said Original Application, the respondent passed an order dated September 20, 2002 treating the entire period as 'dies non'. The Original Application was dismissed by the Tribunal. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1767/2004 before this Court, which was disposed of by an order dated March 10, 2005, whereby this Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal to consider the matter afresh in accordance with the law. The relevant portion of order of this Court is reproduced as under:
"Thereafter a final order was passed by CAT on 5 th August, 2003. The point which had been raised in the said MA, has not been specifically dealt with by the CAT. As a matter of act in para 5 the CAT has relied upon the said impugned order without particularly adverting to the issue raised in the MA. The reliance placed by CAT on the said order of the Director of Education declaring the unauthorised absence as Dies -Non to be treated as break in service was in our view an error apparent on the face of the record. Thereafter, the review petition which was filed by the petitioner ought to have been entertained which has not been done in the case. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the controversy, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the Tribunal to decide afresh in accordance of law, after giving opportunities to both the parties".

The Tribunal reconsidered the matter and after holding that as there was no show cause notice issued to the petitioner before passing the order dated September 20, 2002, set asides the order and direct the respondents to proceed in accordance with law and rules. Consequently a show cause notice dated December 05, 2005 was issued to the petitioner calling upon to explain as to why not the period of unauthorized and wilful absence with effect from February 01, 1984 to March 12, 1985, October 21, 1986 to September 14, 1989 and September 01, 1995 to April 07, 1999 be treated 'dies; non' for all purposes including break in service and further the suspension period with effect from March 13, 1985 to October 20, 1986 be treated as not spent on duty. A reply was given by the petitioner vide his letter dated December 22, 2005. After considering the same, the Director of Education passed order dated November 02, 2006, whereby he decides that the period of unauthorized and wilful absence w.e.f. February 01, 1984 to September 14, 1989 and September 01, 1995 to April 07, 1999 shall be treated as dies non for all purposes and constituting a break in service and further the suspension period w.e.f. March 13, 1985 to October 20, 1986 shall be treated as period not spent on duty.

(3.)THE order dated November 02, 2006 was challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal in Original Application No.981/2007. Two contentions were raised by the petitioner. One on the point of suspension, stating that since the suspension was not followed by any departmental proceedings, the suspension itself is bad in law and he is entitled to full pay allowances. The second one being that treating the period of unauthorized absence as 'dies non' is not as per law, as the petitioner had already retired and the decision in question would affect his pension.