Delhi High Court
M. Ganesan And Ors. vs A.K. Belwal And Ors. on 19 August, 2002
Author: A Sikri
Bench: S Sinha, A Sikri
JUDGMENT
A.K. Sikri, J.
1. Arguments in the writ petition were heard on 16.5.2002 along with connected writ petitions and the judgment was reserved. One of the petitioners, namely, Mr. Swami Nath filed this application (CM. 8106/2002) which came up for hearing on 7.8.2002. The applicant appeared in person and submitted that the matter may be disposed of at an early date. Since this was the only prayer made at the time of hearing this application, the application was disposed of stating that the judgment would be pronounced on 14.8.2002. On 14.8.2002 the judgment in this writ petition and connected writ petitions was pronounced.
2. At this stage Mr. Keshwani, learned counsel appearing for the applicant in CM. 8106/2002 (who was not appearing in the main matter) submitted that his application be heard and decided. He was informed that the application had already been disposed of on 7.8.2002. The learned counsel, however, submitted that in the application the prayer was not for pronouncing of the judgment in the writ petition but in fact as the applicant was not given proper duties, prayer in the application was for giving a direction to the respondent to pass an order of posting of the applicant. Although this prayer was not pressed on 7.8.2002, as pointed out above, and since the applicant had appeared in person and submitted that he could not point out the averments and prayers made in the application, we heard Mr. Keshwani.
3. In the application, the applicant has alleged that he has been kept in waiting for proper posting as per his seniority in a mala fide and biased manner. It was submitted by Mr. Keshwani that although the applicant was receiving the salary, the employee had a right to discharge his duties also and, therefore, necessary orders to this effect may be passed.
4. We may mentioned that the issue involved in the writ petition was inter se seniority of the petitioners viz-a-viz private respondents. It is this issue which has been decided by us. While setting-aside the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal, we have remitted the matter back to it for consideration of the matter afresh. The prayer made in this application does not arise out of the issue involved in the writ petition. The averments made in the application, prima facie, do not relate to the issue involved and may give rise to a fresh cause of action. Be that as it may, we are not pronouncing on this aspect conclusively.
5. Since the matter has been remitted back to the Tribunal, it would be open to the applicant to take recourse to such remedies as are available to him in law which may be dealt with on its own merits. With these observations, the application filed by the applicant stands disposed of. Keeping in view, however, the conduct of the petitioner, we direct him to pay cost which is quantified at Rs. 5,000/-. Such costs be paid to the Delhi Legal Services Authorities within four weeks from date.
6. The petitioner must produce a copy of the receipt before the learned Tribunal. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Central Administrative Tribunal forthwith.
