* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9118/2014 and CM APPL. 20775/2014
Decided on: 22.12.2014
IN THE MATTER OF:
PRASANNA KUMAR PINCHA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pankaj Sinha, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jasmeet Singh, CGSC CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J.(Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was appointed to the post of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities on 27.12.2011 for a period of three years, that expires on 27.12.2014, praying inter alia that the respondents/Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment be restrained from appointing anyone to the said post and from discontinuing his services till a decision is taken on his application dated 08.07.2014 (Annexure P-2).
2. Mr.Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had addressed a letter dated 8.7.2014 to the Secretary, Department of Disability Affairs, Ministry of Social Justice and W.P.(C) 9118/2014 Page 1 of 3 Empowerment, for extension of his tenure for another term in accordance with Rule 43(B) of PwD Rules, 1996 as amended in the year 2009, followed by a reminder dated 08.12.2014, but to no avail. He submits that as per the advertisement dated 22.10.2014 issued by the Ministry, though the petitioner does not meet the prescribed age limit, he has applied for appointment to the said post in terms of the letter dated 17.11.2014, but has not received any response to his earlier representation.
3. Mr. Jasmeet Singh, learned counsel for the respondents/UOI, who appears on advance copy, states that after the amendment to the PwD Rules in the year 2009, whereunder Rule 43(B) of the PwD Rules, 1996 was amended, though the words used in sub-Rule (2) to Rule 43(B) are that "a person may serve as Chief Commissioner for a maximum of two terms, subject to the upper age limit of sixty five years", the respondents/UOI has taken a policy decision not to extend the tenure of the Chief Commissioner beyond the first term and the said decision has been uniformly applied since the year 2009.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents/UOI further states that the petitioner's representation was duly considered by the Ministry and was turned down. In support of his submission that a decision has been taken on the petitioner's representation dated 08.07.2014, learned W.P.(C) 9118/2014 Page 2 of 3 counsel hands over the note file of the respondents/UOI for the court's perusal. The said file contains a note dated 16.09.2014, prepared by the Joint Secretary of the Department and placed before the Secretary, who had in turn approved the proposal made and forwarded it to the Minister-incharge and the said note was approved by the Minister- incharge on 21.09.2014, whereafter it was decided to go ahead with the issuance of the advertisement. Admittedly, a reply has not been formally given by the respondents/UOI to the petitioner's letters. Learned counsel assures the Court that the respondents/UOI shall convey its decision to the petitioner in writing within one week from today.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission, the petition is disposed of alongwith the pending application with directions to the respondents/UOI to communicate its decision in writing to the petitioner within one week from today.
(HIMA KOHLI)
DECEMBER 22, 2014 JUDGE
rkb/mk
W.P.(C) 9118/2014 Page 3 of 3