* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.2656/2003
% Date of Decision: 04.07.2011
Prof. P.N. Bhat .... Petitioner
Through Mr.Dinesh Singh, Advocate
Versus
UOI & Ors. .... Respondents
Through Mr.Gagan Mathur, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
1. Whether reporters of Local papers YES
may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be NO
reported in the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
* CM No.22124/2010 The applicant/petitioner has sought directions to the respondents to release the payment of difference between ".....pay less the subsistence allowance....." for the duration between 16th May, 1990 to 6th September, 1990 and between 24th October, 1990 to 7th August, 1991 with the appropriate interest at the rate of 9% per annum, claiming an amount of Rs.4,25,024/- and also directions to release payment of gratuity (DCRG) allegedly illegally withheld by the WP(C) No.2656/2003 Page 1 of 5 respondents amounting to Rs.3,25,000/- as on 1st November, 1997 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, amounting to Rs.9,82,675/- as on 31st October, 2010. The applicant has also sought directions to the respondents to release the alleged legitimate Leave Encashment benefit to the petitioner amounting to Rs.1,96,500/- as on 1st November, 1997 at the rate of 9% per annum amounting to Rs.5,94,140/- as on 31st October, 2010.
The applicant has contended that the above noted writ petition in which the present application has been filed, seeks the quashing of the order dated 17th December, 2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA 3223/2002 as well as the quashing of Office Memorandums dated 25th September, 1997 and 31st October, 1997 issuing charge sheets against the petitioner.
By the Office Memorandum dated 25th September, 1997 it was proposed that an inquiry be conducted into the alleged misconduct or misbehaviour on the part of the petitioner. Thereafter by Office Memorandum dated 31st October, 1997, another inquiry was proposed in respect of the imputations of other misconducts and misbehaviour as against the petitioner.
WP(C) No.2656/2003 Page 2 of 5 The petitioner had sought quashing of Charge Sheet/Office Memorandum dated 25th September, 1997 and 31st October, 1997 on the ground that there had been unreasonable delay in conducting the inquiry in respect of the charges pertaining to the period between 1984 to 1987 and on the ground that the petitioner had retired on 31st October, 1997.
The Tribunal had dismissed the original application of the petitioner/applicant on the ground that the charge sheets had been served before the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation and also since the inquiry officer who had been appointed in the matter had resigned and the second one had been appointed only in August, 2002. The Tribunal had directed that the inquiry be completed within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order dated 17th December, 2002.
It was not the subject matter of the original application before the Tribunal whether or not to release the payment of difference between the ".....pay less the subsistence allowance....." and the payment of gratuity as well as the payment of the leave encashment benefits. This is also not disputed that the other writ petitions being WP(C) No. 5695/2003 and WP(C) No.8245/2008 are pending between the parties.
WP(C) No.2656/2003 Page 3 of 5 The applicant cannot enlarge the scope of the original application filed before the Tribunal which was dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 17th October, 2002 by seeking the present relief in the application in the writ petition filed against the order of dismissal of his original application. In any case, decision of the present application in the present writ petition will impact the decision of the other writ petitions pending between the parties.
The reliefs sought by the petitioner/applicant cannot be granted as interim reliefs. Whether the petitioner is entitled for reliefs claimed in the application or not can be decided only after adjudicating about the punishment imposed upon the petitioner after conducting the inquiries in respect of which the other matters are pending.
In the circumstances, the petitioner/applicant has not been able to make out sufficient grounds to grant the reliefs claimed in respect of the release of the payment of difference between "....pay less the subsistence allowance....", payment of gratuity and payment of the alleged leave encashment as interim reliefs.
By order dated 26th April, 2011, it has already been ordered that the connected writ petitions bearing WP(C) No. 8245/2008 and WP(C) No.2656/2003 Page 4 of 5 WP(C)No. 5695/2003 and the present writ petition be heard together. In the circumstances, it will not be appropriate to grant the relief sought by the petitioner/applicant as interim reliefs, pursuant to the above noted application of the petitioner.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not inclined to grant any reliefs to the petitioner/applicant at this stage. The application is, therefore, dismissed.
W.P.(C) No.2656/2003 List this writ petition along with W.P.(C) No.8245/2008 & W.P.(C) No.5695/2003, in the category of „Regular Matters of Senior Citizens‟ according to their seniority.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
JULY 04, 2011 rs WP(C) No.2656/2003 Page 5 of 5