Government Of Nct Of Delhi vs Shri I.S. Sharma
2007 Latest Caselaw 779 Del

JUDGMENT

P.K. Bhasin, J.

1. The Government of NCT of Delhi is seeking review of our judgment dated 26-05-2006 by filing an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure after having approached the Apex Court for getting that judgment reversed and not succeeding there. Vide our order dated 26-05-2006 the writ petition of the applicant filed against some orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal) in OA No. 562/01 was dismissed.

2. The relevant facts which are necessary to be noticed for disposing of the present application are like this:

The Government of NCT of Delhi took over the Delhi Fire Service, which was earlier under the administrative control of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, in the year 1994. As a consequence of that take over the employees working in the Fire Service Department of Municipal Corporation of Delhi came under the administrative control of the Delhi Government. However, no fresh recruitment Rules governing the service of the employees of the erstwhile Delhi Fire Service were framed till August, 1998 and consequently no DPCs were held for the promotion of the employees of the erstwhile Delhi Fire Service. In September, 1998 recruitment Rules in respect of the employees of Delhi Fire Service, who were absorbed by the Delhi Government after the take over of Delhi Fire Service, were framed by the Lt. Governor, Delhi. Thereafter some of the employees of the erstwhile Delhi Fire Service, who were2 working as Assistant Divisional Officers(Fire) on current charge basis, were promoted to the post of Divisional Officer(Fire) on current charge basis. When the Government sought to fill up some vacancies for the post of Divisional Officer on deputation basis in January, 2001 without considering the claim of departmental candidates who were already holding that post on current charge basis they approached the Tribunal at Delhi challenging the action of the Government and giving them promotion on current charge basis only and that too without paying salary etc. attached to the higher post of Divisional Officer. During the pendency of that OA the Government abolished the unfilled posts of Assistant Divisional Officers which were in existence before the take-over of the Delhi Fire Service. However, later on the Government revoked that decision of abolition of posts of Assistant Divisional Officers and asked UPSC to hold DPC for those posts which were treated to be of the year 1998-99. Pursuant to the recommendations of the UPSC the petitioners before theTribunal were given regular promotion as Assistant Divisonal Officers but w.e.f. 01-04-2002 on officiating basis. Since they were claiming promotion retrospectively they continued to pursue their petition before the Tribunal. That petition was contested by the Government, inter- alia, on the grounds that after the take-over of the Delhi Fire Service by the Delhi Government even the existing unfilled vacancies had to be filled up only in accordance with the new Rules which were framed in 1998 by the Delhi Government in respect of the employees of the Delhi Fire Service who were absorbed by the Delhi Government and not by the old Rules framed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. It was also claimed that in any case, even under the old Rules the petitioners had not become eligible for being promoted as Divisional Officers since they had not completed the requisite period of service as Assistant Divisional Officer on regular basis. That petition(being OA No. 562/01) was finally allowed by the Tribunal and the Delhi Government was directed to hold review DPCs for filling up of promotional posts which were available in the Delhi Fire Service before its take over by the Delhi Government by taking into consideration year- wise vacancies and also to consider the eligible employees for the next promotional post of Divisional Officer. Feeling aggrieved by that decision of the Tribunal the Delhi Government filed a writ petition in this Court which, as noticed already, was dismissed by us vide our order dated 26-05-2006. Thereafter the Government of NCT of Delhi filed a Special Leave Petition in the Hon'ble Supreme Court [being SLP (Civil) No. 18691/2006]. That Special Leave Petition was taken up for hearing by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 24-11-2006 but on that date the same was withdrawn. The following order was passed in that petition:

Learned Additional Solicitor General prays for withdrawal of the Special Leave Petition with liberty to seek clarification from the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

3. Thereafter the Government of NCT of Delhi filed the present application under Section 151 CPC for 'review/clarification' of our order dated 26-05-2006. In the review application as well as during the course of hearing of the same it has been claimed that the directions given by the Tribunal and which have been upheld by this Court vide our order dated 26-05-2006 are contrary to the judgment dated 29-03-2001 passed by the Tribunal in another petition of some other employees(being O.A. No. 491/01) wherein it had been held that with the change of employer even the vacancies existing before the change of the employer have to be filled up in accordance with the new recruitment rules which are framed by the new employer and it was pursuant to that decision of the Tribunal that promotions had been made. Another point taken in support of the review petition is that in the facts and circumstances of the present case promotions could not be made on the basis of year- wise vacancies which were available before the take-over of Delhi Fire Service by the Government of NCT of Delhi and that the services of the employees of the erstwhile Delhi Fire Service were taken over with a clear understanding that they would be governed by the Rules to be framed by the Government of NCT of Delhi and not by the Rules framed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi which existed before the take-over. It has also been claimed in the review petition that if the judgment of the Tribunal, which stands upheld by this Court, is to be implemented the same will have cascading effect as there would be many employees who would start claiming the benefit of promotion under the old Rules framed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

4. During the hearing of this review petition we asked the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant as to what was the ambiguity in our order dated 26- 05-2006 which required clarification from this Court and for which purpose only permission had been sought from the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the Delhi Government while withdrawing its Special Leave Petition against the said order of this Court. Learned Counsel, however, could not point out any ambiguity requiring any clarification from this Court. The submissions which the learned Counsel made were that we should review our judgment dated 26-05-2006 in entirety since it had been passed without taking into consideration the fact that the applicants before the Tribunal had not agitated their grievances at the relevant point of time before the appropriate Forum and they had claimed promotions on the basis of old Rules after the new Rules framed by the Delhi Government had come into existence which prayer could not be entertained by the Tribunal as it had become time barred.

5. We have given our due consideration to the entire aspect of the matter and we feel that the present application is liable to be rejected since no clarification at all has been sought by the applicant from this Court in respect of the order dated 26-05-2006. In the garb of filing this application seeking clarification for which purpose only liberty was sought by the applicant from the Hon'ble Supreme Court while withdrawing its Special Leave Petition, the applicant cannot claim reversal of our order dated 26-05-2006. After withdrawing the Special Leave Petition the applicant, in our opinion, in any case cannot file a review petition and even otherwise the averments made in the application and urged by the learned Counsel for the applicant during the course of hearing of the same do not constitute a valid ground for review as postulated under order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 151 CPC cannot be invoked to by-pass that specific provision for review.

6. We, therefore, dismiss this application.