* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 691 OF 2007
Date of Pronouncement: July 12, 2011
OM PRAKASH SNEHI
..... Petitioner
Through None.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Meera Bhatia, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 11.10.2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 1715/2006, titled Shri Om Parkash Snehi vs. Union of India and Ors. declining the original application of the petitioner seeking quashing of orders dated 2.5.2005 and 11.07.2005 and WP(C) No.691 of 2007 Page 1 of 4 declining the request of the petitioner for counting his ad hoc period of service for regular appointment.
2. On 10.09.2001, the Director Prosecution by order dated 19.09.2001 had circulated a tentative seniority list of officers appointed on regular basis to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor in the Directorate of Prosecution. The petitioner had contended that his name was shown junior to the officers promoted by order dated 22.08.1994 who were in fact junior to him despite the fact that he had already been appointed as Senior/Additional Public Prosecutor on 1.7.1994.
3. The Tribunal while considering the claim of the petitioner considered the pleas and contentions raised on behalf of the Delhi Senior Prosecuting Officers' Welfare Association, who had also filed an original application being O.A. No. 1171/2006, which was also decided by the Tribunal by its order dated 21.07.2006. It was noticed that pursuant to the implementation of the judgment passed by the High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous (M) No. 2275/1993 in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 22 new courts of Additional Sessions Judges were created and consequently, 22 Additional Public Prosecutors had to be promoted to the post of Additional Public Prosecutor on ad hoc basis in the year 1994.
4. By order dated 22.08.1994, 14 officers were promoted though the promotion was on ad hoc basis only and they were WP(C) No.691 of 2007 Page 2 of 4 regularized later on. The petitioner was appointed by order dated 1.7.1994, but he was promoted prospectively by order dated 2.5.2005. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that though the posts were available but the respondents did not take any positive steps to regularize their services earlier and he was appointed only on ad hoc basis and his services were regularized at later stage.
5. The Tribunal considered the pleas and contentions of the parties and held that since appointment order clearly stipulated that ad hoc appointment would not confer any right upon the petitioner regarding seniority as the appointment was only a stop gap arrangement and therefore, the petitioner's claim for counting of ad hoc service for regular appointment could be entertained and the claim of the petitioner was declined.
6. No one had appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 6.7.2011, however, no adverse order was passed and the matter was allowed to remain on Board in the category of 'Regular Matters'.
7. The matter was again taken up on 8.7.2011. However, again, no one had appeared on behalf of the petitioner. This court did not pass any adverse order against the petitioner and allowed the matter to remain on Board in the category of 'Regular Matters'.
8. Today, again, no one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. In the circumstances, this Court is left with no alternative WP(C) No.691 of 2007 Page 3 of 4 but to dismiss the writ petition in default of appearance of petitioner and his counsel.
9. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in default.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
July 12, 2011 rd WP(C) No.691 of 2007 Page 4 of 4