Delhi High Court
Dr.A.K.Belwal vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 April, 2010
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.2791/2010
% Date of Decision: 27.04.2010
Dr.A.K.Belwal .... Petitioner
Through Dr.A.K.Belwal, Petitioner in person.
Versus
Union of India & Ors. .... Respondents
Through Mr.A.K.Bhardwaj & Mr.M.P.Singh,
Advocates for the respondent No.1/UOI.
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 in this writ petition seeks a direction to the
respondent that he may be given all the benefits, promotion and
increase in salary prayed for and granted by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in its order dated 7th January,
1999, the High Court's Order dated 24th November, 1999 and the
Supreme Court's order dated 24th July, 2008.
The petitioner, after some arguments, contends that he is
aggrieved by the order dated 12th December, 2008 whereby his
miscellaneous application seeking implementation of the directions of
the Tribunal in O.A. No.1206/1993 was dismissed. The Tribunal has
noted that it is clear that the order dated 7th January, 1999 passed in
O.A.No.1288 of 1993 has already been considered in detail in O.A.
No.1603 of 2001. It was held that the petitioner has already got relief
which was sought in O.A.No.1206 of 1993 as he got the relief in so far
as his promotion to Senior Time Scale from Junior Time Scale
(hereinafter referred to as 'the STS & JTS') is concerned.
Learned counsel, Mr.A.K.Bhardwaj, appearing on advance notice
has pointed out that an order dated 7th January, 1999 after noticing
petitioner's ACRs as well as the review DPC proceedings and after
considering rule 13 of IES Rules was passed by the Tribunal. The
department had held review DPC for promotion from STS to JAG on
various dates between 1st February, 1989 and 13th December, 1992.
The review DPC, however, had not recommended the case of the
petitioner in the select list for promotion from STS to JAG.
Later on, the DPC was held on 10th May, 1994, however, the
petitioner was found to be fit for promotion, and recommended his case
for promotion to JAG. In the circumstances, no irregularity or illegality
in the proceedings of the Review DPC was found and the reliefs claimed
by the petitioner were declined. The reliefs granted to the petitioner has
already been implemented and consequently, the reliefs claimed in
M.A.No.1531 of 2008 in O.A.No.1288 of 1993 had not survived,
however, the petitioner approached the Tribunal knowing fully well that
the issues raised by him in the miscellaneous application had already
been settled.
The Tribunal thus, noticed all the facts and circumstances and
considering the pleas and contentions had dismissed the application of
the petitioner by the order dated 12th December, 2008 in M.A.No.1531
of 2008.
Considering the pleas and contentions raised by the petitioner,
we do not find any perversity, illegality or irregularity in the order of the
Tribunal dated 12th December, 2008 so as to necessitate any
interference by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. Though the order was passed on 12th
December, 2008, the petitioner has also failed to explain as to why he
has approached the Court almost after two years. Various other
petitions filed by the petitioner are already pending in this Court.
In totality of facts and circumstances, there is no ground to
interfere with the order of the Tribunal, or to grant any of the relief
sought by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
The writ petition, in the facts and circumstances, is without any
merit, therefore, it is dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
APRIL 27, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'vK'
