Delhi High Court
Ajay Gupta vs North Central Zone Cultural ... on 9 November, 2009
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
R-12.
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 09.11.2009
+ LPA No.119/2001
AJAY GUPTA ....Appellants
Through: Mr.M.N.Krishnamani, Senior
Advocate with Ms.Soumyajit
Pani, Advocate.
versus
NORTH CENTRAL ZONE CULTURAL CENTRE & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment? No.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest? No.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (ORAL)
1. The appellant has suffered a dismissal of the writ
petition filed by him on the ground that there is a suppression
of relevant facts.
2. The appellant averred in the writ petition that vide
order dated 07.11.1992, he was appointed as a Documentation
Assistant on contract basis for a year, which appointment was
extended on yearly basis till 11.05.1998. It was further averred
that vide an order dated 19.05.1998 he was deployed as a
Documentation Assistant for a period of one year and on
25.05.1999, the appointment was continued for three months.
3. Alleging discrimination in the form of services of
other contractual employees being regularized and his claim
for regularization being ignored, a writ petition was filed
praying that a mandamus be issued to the respondents that
services of the appellant be regularized as a Documentation
Assistant.
4. In the counter-affidavit filed, it was disclosed to the
Court, that appellant's appointment as a Documentation
Assistant on yearly basis, as per the contract, came to an end
on 11.05.1998 and that vide the order dated 19.05.1998, with
effect from 12.05.1998, the appellant was employed as a
Cultural Consultant and vide order dated 25.05.1999, the
contractual appointment was continued for three months. It
was stated that having ceased to work as a Documentation
Assistant on 11.05.1998, the appellant could not claim a right
to permanent employment in the said post of Documentation
Assistant.
5. The learned Single Judge has found that the
appellant has suppressed the relevant fact of being disengaged
in service as a Documentation Assistant and re-engaged in
service under the respondents as a Cultural Consultant. The
result is the dismissal of the writ petition without adjudication
of the claim on merits.
6. We note that in terms of the interim orders passed
in the instant appeal, the appellant has continued to service
under the respondents.
7. From a perusal of the impugned order, we note that
the learned Single Judge has proceeded on the basis that the
posts of Documentation Assistant and Cultural Consultants are
different posts.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant draws our
attention to the fact that for the same post, sometimes the
employer would refer to the post as that of a Documentation
Assistant and sometime as that of a Cultural Consultant.
9. Various communications addressed to the appellant
post filing of the instant appeal have been shown to us, in
which we find that the respondents are referring to the
appellant as a Documentation Assistant.
10. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion
that the learned Single Judge has erred, without deciding
whether the post of a Documentation Assistant is the same as
that of a Cultural Consultant, to proceed on the basis that the
two posts are different posts.
11. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the
impugned order dated 07.02.2001 and restore the writ petition,
filed by the appellant, to be adjudicated on merits.
12. We clarify that we have not rendered any final
opinion on the issue whether the post of a Documentation
Assistant is the same as that of a Cultural Consultant. The
learned Single Judge would be free to re-decide the said issue.
13. Needless to state, if it is held that the posts of a
Documentation Assistant and a Cultural Consultant are mere
nomenclatures, but the posts are the same with reference to
the duties performed, the learned Single Judge would
adjudicate the writ petition on merits.
14. We permit the appellant to file a further affidavit
before the learned Single Judge and enclose therewith such
further documents on which the appellant desires to place
reliance upon.
15. We further direct that till the writ petition is
disposed of, the interim order in favour of the appellant passed
in the instant appeal shall continue to enure.
16. No costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
(JUDGE)
SURESH KAIT
(JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 09, 2009
sb
