Delhi High Court
Sh.Arun Kumar Rao vs Union Of India & Another on 16 April, 2010
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.2477/2010
%
Date of Decision: 16.04.2010
Sh.Arun Kumar Rao .... Petitioner
Through In person.
Versus
Union of India & another .... Respondents
Through Mr.A.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO
in the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 24th April, 2009
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New
Delhi in O.A. No.1090 of 2009, titled as 'Sh.Arun Kumar Rao v. Union
of India and others' dismissing his application for setting aside the
order dated 13th October, 2008 passed by the Director, Government of
India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi declining any
offer for job to the petitioner.
Brief facts to comprehend the controversies between the parties
are that the petitioner joined the post of Store Keeper in Zoological
Survey of India on 30th July, 1975. During the extended period of
probation, the services of the petitioner were terminated, which was
challenged by the petitioner before the Calcutta High Court. The Single
Judge of the Calcutta High Court had dismissed his petition, however,
the Division Bench had allowed the petition challenging his termination
by order dated 07th December, 1981.
The respondents had challenged the order dated 07th December,
1981 passed by the Division Bench, in the Supreme Court. The order of
the Division Bench was set aside, however, the Supreme Court had also
observed that the respondent should provide some job to the petitioner.
Though the petitioner was on probation as Store Keeper when his
services was terminated, however, pursuant to order of the Supreme
Court, he was offered appointment to the post of L.D.C. After receipt of
the offer of appointment to the post of L.D.C., the petitioner had to
convey his willingness which was not given by him despite reminders,
nor petitioner joined the post of LDC. The petitioner had approached
the Supreme Court, however, it was held on 4th August, 1987 that the
petitioner had a liberty to accept or decline the offer made by the
respondents, and in case of acceptance, the petitioner had to join the
post of LDC offered to him within 8 weeks, which was not done by the
petitioner.
The petitioner has also admitted that he was filed a contempt
petition before the Supreme Court which was declined, however, the
petitioner has not given the details of the same.
This is also not disputed that after the order dated 23rd January,
1986 was passed by the Supreme Court, the petitioner approached the
Tribunal after about 19 years. The Tribunal passed the order dated 6th
July, 2007 directing the respondents to dispose of the mercy petition of
the petitioner within a period of two months, and pursuant thereto, an
order dated 11th May, 2007 was passed.
The plea of the petitioner that he did not accept the offer of
appointment to the post of LDC as it was not issued by the President of
India was not accepted by the Tribunal as the offer of appointment was
under the signature of Joint Director, Incharge Zoological Survey of
India. It was held that once the order was communicated to the
petitioner in pursuance to the direction of the Supreme Court, there
was no need to pass an order by the President of India. The Tribunal
also noticed that the petitioner is unable to explain the delay of 19
years.
From perusal of the record, it also transpires that an MA No.1021
of 2008 was filed by the petitioner which was disposed of by order dated
28th July, 2008 pursuant to which an order dated 13th October, 2008
was passed by the respondents. The order stipulates that the petitioner
did not join the post of LDC within the time stipulated, and therefore,
there was no ground, nor it was feasible to offer any job to him at this
juncture.
The petitioner is unable to show any cogent ground to this Court
to interfere with the order of the Tribunal dated 24th April, 2009 passed
in O.A.1090 of 2009. The offer was made to the petitioner for the post of
LDC pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court and the petitioner had
filed an application for contempt against the respondents, which was
dismissed by the Supreme Court. In the facts and circumstances, we
do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order dated 24th April,
2009 so as to interfere with same in exercise of our jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is without any merit, and it is, therefore,
dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
APRIL 16, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG,J.
'VK'
