Delhi High Court
Ramesh Chand vs Uoi & Ors. on 28 October, 2009
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 28.10.2009
+ W.P.(C) 1126/2007
RAMESH CHAND ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.B.K. Mishra, Advocate.
Versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Ravinder Aggarwal,
Advocate for Respondent Nos.1
to 3.
Mr.Anil Mittal, Advocate for
Respondent No.4.
WITH
+ W.P.(C) 4392/2007
DHURENDRA KUMAR TOMAR & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.B.K. Mishra, Advocate.
Versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Dr.Ashwani Bhardwaj for
Mr.Jitender Chaudhary,
Advocate for Respondent Nos.1
to 4.
Mr.Anil Mittal, Advocate for
Respondent No.5.
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?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest? No.
WP(C) No.1126/2007 Page 1 of 4
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (ORAL)
1. Both writ petitions raise common questions of law and fact
and hence are being decided together.
2. Rule DB. Heard for disposal.
3. Ramesh Chand, Dhurendra Kumar Tomar and Din Bandhu
Gupta were admittedly working as Superintendents under
Border Road Organization (BRO).
4. All three applied through proper channel for being
considered for appointment to the posts of Junior Engineer when
applications were invited by UP Irrigation Department through
the UP Public Services Commission.
5. All three were selected and empanelled for being
appointed as Junior Engineers in the UP Irrigation Department,
as per list of successful candidates published by UP Public
Services Commission.
6. All three applied for being relieved by the Border Road
Organization i.e. submitted technical resignations.
7. The reason for the three submitting technical resignations
is the requirement of law so that the petitioners could have
continuity of service for purposes of pension and counting past
service rendered under Border Road Organization.
8. The immediate head of the three petitioners i.e. the Chief
Engineer (Project) issued a no objection certificate to Ramesh
Chand on 04.01.2006 permitting him to take up the new
assignment under UP Irrigation Department. Petitioners
Dhurendra Kumar Tomar and Din Bandhu Gupta were likewise
issued the no objection certificates on 05.01.2005 and
11.11.2005 respectively.
9. All three joined services under UP Irrigation Department
but faced a problem, for the reason, the technical resignations
submitted by the three were rejected.
10. All the three joined UP Irrigation Department. It is
apparent that they did so lawfully.
11. With the refusal of the acceptance of the technical
resignations submitted by them, the effect would be that all
three would be losing the benefit of past services rendered
under Border Road Organization or alternatively would be
compelled to rejoin under Border Road Organization.
12. As per the counter-affidavits filed, the respondents state
that as per policy decision dated 09.05.2006, the petitioners
cannot be relieved. It is urged by learned counsel for the
respondent BRO that the policy was framed keeping in view the
manpower required under BRO.
13. Suffice would it be to state that unless made expressly
retrospective, a policy has to applicable prospectively. Even if it
is made retrospective in operation, a policy cannot override a
vested and a settled right.
14. As noted hereinabove, the three petitioners were granted
no objection certificates to join service under U.P. Irrigation
Department by their departmental heads on 05.11.2005,
11.11.2005 and 04.01.2006 i.e. dates when the policy dated
09.05.2006 was not even born.
15. We note that by the time when the policy was framed, the
petitioners had already joined services under UP Irrigation
Department and under interim orders passed by this Court are
continuing to work under UP Irrigation Department.
16. We dispose of the petition directing the Border Road
Organization to accept the technical resignations submitted by
the petitioners and communicate the acceptance to the
petitioners with a copy thereof to the UP Irrigation Department.
Needful would be done within a period of 12 months.
17. No costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
SURESH KAIT, J.
OCTOBER 28, 2009
sb
