J.P. Gupta vs Union Of India And Ors.
2001 Latest Caselaw 1762 Del

JUDGMENT

Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. In this Writ Petition, filed in May, 1985, it has been prayed as under:-

(A) allow this writ petition with costs and damages;

(B) Issue appropriate writ or writs, direction or directions, order or orders.

(i) quashing various documents/ orders leading to the rejection of the case of the petitioner for absorption in DDA;

(ii) declaring the petitioner entitled to be absorbed in the DDA;

(iii) directing the respondent CPWD to give its concurrence to the absorption of the petitioner in the DDA;

(iv) quashing the impugned act of the DDA in not taking the petitioner on duty after he reported for duty on the expiry of his leave;

(v) directing the respondent DDA to absorb the petitioner in the DDA with all consequential benefits;

(vi) directing the respondent DDA to take the petitioner on duty in DDA from the date from which he reported for duty after expiry of his leave and then take further action in the matter according to law;

(vii) directing the respondent DDA to regularise the entire stay of the petitioner in the DDA till date including the period of leave from 16th May 1984 to 05th April, 1985 and pay him all his dues as a sequence to that like salary, leave salary, arrears etc. as fully stated in Annexure XXXIII referred to above;

(viii) declaring the order dated 26th September 1983 as no longer valid and operative and, therefore, declaring that no question arose for joining the CPWD by the petitioner in pursuance of the said order as, in fact, the said order has never been implemented and, therefore, directing the respondents DDA to take the petitioner on duty and then take further action in accordance with law; and

(C) issue such other writ or writs, direction or directions, order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper to meet the ends of justice."

2. On 31.5.1985 a Division Bench presided over by the Chief Justice had recorded that "after some hearing learned counsel states that the petitioner is willing to go back to C.P.W.D. and does not insist upon being absorbed in the D.D.A." Notice was issued on the basis of the statement for 18.7.1985. The DDA was directed to pay salary to the Petitioner of at least six months from April, 1984. Rule was issued on 14.11.1985 and it was recorded that "we find that the DDA has passed an order reverting the petitioner to his parent department and the petitioner is willing to join the same. Mr. Talwar says that the DDA will issue the petitioner a Last Pay Certificate (LPC). We direct the petitioner to collect the above said certificate at 11 A.M. on 25th November, 1985 from the office of the Chief Engineer and report to the CPWD on the same day." The Petitioner has since retired from service.

3. The case of the Petitioner from the pleadings is that the Petitioner who was initially appointed as Junior Engineer in CPWD in 1952; was confirmed in 1959 and was promoted as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in 1971. His service was placed at the disposal of the DDA in public interest for a period of one year or until further orders, whichever was earlier, in terms of the Office Order dated 1st July, 1976. He joined duties as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the DDA on 16th August, 1976 on terms and conditions of the deputation contained in DDA's Letter dated 15th March, 1977. By Letter dated 11th March, 1980 of the DDA the deputation was extended up to 15.8.1980. A copy of the Letter was endorsed to the CPWD (Respondent No. 3). By Letter dated 23rd March, 1983 the DDA ordered the repatriation to the CPWD of the Petitioner as well as Shri G.R. Jain. It appears that the Petitioner however continued with the DDA since he was relieved of his duties as EA to Chief Engineer by DDA's Order of even date. Thereafter, the DDA's Memorandum dated 5.10.1983 to the same effect was served on the Petitioner. The Petitioner addressed a letter dated 2.11.1983 to the Chief Engineer, DDA representing against his repatriation. However, till 28.121983, as is evident from an order of the Chief Engineer of that date, it was not clear even in the DDA. Another Representation to the Vice Chairman, DDA, dated 11.5.1984 was made by the Petitioner in which he prayed for his retention in the DDA on the compassionate grounds for two more years. It is stated in the Petition that the Petitioner continued to perform his duties and be paid his monthly salary up to 31.3.1984 by/in the DDA. This request, however, was turned down by DDA's Letter dated 28th June, 1984, in which it was stated the "the question for giving him further extension for two years due to his family problems does not arise. He may seek relief on this account from Director General of Works, Central Public Works Department. It may please be noted that no representation will be entertained in future." Subsequent reminders/representations of the Petitioner were, in fact, ignored by the DDA. The CPWD also rejected the Petitioner's request for continuing in/or absorption in the DDA.

4. Despite service no representation has been made on behalf of the CPWD. After several opportunities had been availed off the DDA finally filed its Counter Affidavit in July, 1987. It has been admitted that the Petitioner was taken on deputation with effect from 1.7.1976 and rejoined duties on 16.8.1976. It is submitted that the Petitioner has no right to claim absorption in the DDA, and that he was relieved from his duties on 26.9.1983, It is pointed out that the parent department of the Petitioner vide his Letter dated 3.1.1985 advised the Petitioner to resume his duties in the Central Office of the CPWD. This advice was not headed, but Representations continued to be made. It is pointed out that since the Petitioner has already joined in his parent department, his prayer for absorption by Respondent No.3 has become infructuous. It has been underscored that in the DDA's Order dated 25th September, 1985, the Petitioner was again directed to report to the Director General of Works, CPWD, New Delhi, and the decision on his unauthorised absence would be taken in due course in accordance with the Rules and in consultation with his parent department.

5. Regretfully, the Court did not have the advantage of any assistance from the DDA or its Counsel, resulting in monumentally amount of time being needlessly wasted in hearing the Petitioner in person, and perusing voluminous files. The Petitioner had argued that he was entitled to be absorbed in the DDA. He has also argued at length that various other persons, similarly placed as the Petitioner, had been absorbed in the DDA. No doubt, there is a plethora of precedents on the question of absorption and the rights of deputationists in this regard and that it is an anathema to law that parties similarly placed should be given different treatment. The Petitioner, however, did not bring to the notice of the Court the previous statement made on his behalf before the Division Bench to the effect that he is willing to go back to CPWD and does not insist upon being absorbed in the DDA. This statement was made on 31.5.1985 as well as on 14.11.1985. As has been mentioned, the Petitioner is already retired. A claim for monetary compensation had been made during the arguments. It has also been argued by the Petitioner that since he had better promotional avenues in the DDA his repatriation was detrimental to his interests.

6. After having considered the arguments addressed by the Petitioner in every favorable perspective and angle, I am unable to appreciate how any claim can be admissible after his statement to the Division Bench to the effect that he does not wish to be absorbed in the DDA and is willing to be repatriated to the CPWD.

7. In these circumstances, the Petition is dismissed.