Udai Bhan Tiwari & Ors. vs Uoi & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 2254 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                 LPA No.172/2009 & C.M. Nos.5694, 5696 OF 2009

        UDAI BHAN TIWARI & ORS.              ..... Appellants
                            Through: Mr. S.D. Singh, Advocate.

                                  versus

        UOI & ORS.                                  ..... Respondents
                                  Through: Mr. Virendra Kumar Singh,
                                           Adv. for respondent No.1.
                                           Mr. Ajay Kapur with Mr. G.
                                           Panmei & Ms. Savita Rajdor,
                                           Advocates for respondent
                                           No.2/ITDC.
                                           Mrs. Francesca Kapur,
                                           Adv. for respondent No.4.

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL

                              ORDER

% 25.05.2009

1. The present appeal arises out of impugned order dated

18.3.2008. The appellants before us had moved an application in a

disposed of writ petition. The said application was dismissed.

Consequently, the present appeal has been filed.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants

(original petitioners in the writ petition) had filed a writ petition where

their grievance was to the legality of ITDC decision to handover the

management of the Hotel Ashok, Varanasi. The appellants had also

prayed for a direction that they should be posted to some other unit

of the ITDC. By judgment and order dated 1.5.2006, the writ petition

was disposed of. It was noted in the said judgment that as far as the

first issue was concerned, the correctness of the policy decision was

pending consideration by the Supreme Court under Article 139 A

which had been invoked to consolidate and transfer writ petitions

pending before various High Courts. As far as the second issue was

concerned, the court felt that though the appellants had established

that they had represented for their transfer, there was no

corresponding obligation on the ITDC to accede to the request. The

court refrained from giving any directions on this issue, however,

upon a submission made by the newly added transferee, they were

required to issue letters of appointment and further grant ten weeks'

time to the appellants to report for duties at Maharaj Ganj, where the

unit was located. It was stated before the learned single judge by the

appellants that they had reported to the unit in compliance with the

court orders but were prevented from taking charge of their posts.

3. It is pertinent to mention here that the appeal filed by the

appellants against the judgment dated 1.5.2006 was rejected on

17.7.2006. The learned single judge rightly held that the claim for

absorption in some unit of ITDC or entitlement for VRS as was

sought, stood concluded. The learned single judge also rightly

observed that as far as the reliefs against the transferee were

concerned, the court had merely recorded their claim to accept the

appellants in their employment and had made consequential

arrangements. It was premised by way of concession since on the

merits. the appellants' reliefs had been declined.

4. Even today during the course of hearing the counsel for

the transferee submitted that they were willing to permit the

appellants to join duty at the Maharaj Ganj unit, however, counsel

for the appellants submitted that they were not inclined to do so.

Further, we also attempted to explore a settlement whereby some

lump sum payment could be made to the appellants in full and final

settlement of the disputes, however, even this was not acceptable to

the appellants.

5. In view of what is stated hereinabove, we find no

infirmity in the findings of the learned single judge. Moreover, the

application could not have been moved by the appellants in a

disposed of writ petition. The appeal must fail and is accordingly

dismissed. However, it is open to the appellants to raise their

disputes in accordance with law before the appropriate forum. All

pending applications stand disposed of as well. It is ordered

accordingly.

CHIEF JUSTICE

NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J.

MAY 25, 2009 'AA'