S.C. Sahu & Ors. vs Uoi & Ors
2010 Latest Caselaw 3696 Del

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                    Date of Decision : 9th August, 2010
%

                      +       W.P.(C)No.1324/1994

       S.C. SAHU & ORS.                         ..... Petitioner
                      Through : Mr. K. Venkatraman, Adv.

                     versus

       UOI & ORS                                   ..... Respondents
                            Through : Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv.

                      +       W.P.(C)No.2648/1994

       SHRI MARCUS                                    ..... Petitioner
                            Through : Mr. K. Venkatraman, Adv.

                     versus

       UOI & ORS                                   ..... Respondents
                            Through : Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv.

                      +       W.P.(C)No.2732/1994

       SHRI RAKESH KUMAR                       ..... Petitioner
                     Through : Mr. K. Venkatraman, Adv.

                     versus

       UOI & ORS                                   ..... Respondents
                            Through : Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.       Whether Reporters of Local papers may                NO
         be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.       To be referred to the Reporter or not?               NO

3.       Whether the judgment should be                       NO
         reported in the Digest?

GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)

1. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents.

Mr.Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel who represents the

respondents in other matters happens to be in the court in

some case, has been directed to appear in these cases.

Learned counsels have been heard.

2. These three writ petitions raise an identical issue of law

and fact and consequently have been heard together.

3. The petitioners were appointed against the post of Lab

Technicians which was against the strength of the Peace

Keeping Element ('PKE' hereafter). It is an admitted position

that there was no separate cadre of personnel manning the

PKE. The petitioners contend that they were consequently

recruited against permanent vacancies of the CRPF and

confirmed after completing the period of probation.

4. The writ petitions were necessitated for the reason that

the respondents had proposed abolition of the post of Lab

Technicians who had been appointed against the strength of

PKEs. As a result, such Lab Technicians became surplus and

were asked to submit their options for appointment as Head

Constables (GD) on or before 15th February, 1994. The

petitioners were also informed that in case they are not willing

to exercise this option, their services would be terminated and

in this background, by an order dated 11th January, 1994, the

petitioners were held to be surplus on the strength of the CRPF.

5. As the petitioner was not willing to accept the offer, he

had submitted a representation dated 10th February, 1994

against the said proposals whereby the petitioner was being

demoted to a lower rank.

6. In this background, the petitioners filed the present writ

petitions assailing the proposed threat of the respondents to

terminate their services upon their failing exercise of the option

as was proposed. Interim orders were passed in all the three

matters in favour of the petitioner whereby it was directed that

the services of the petitioner could not be terminated. These

interim orders were subsequently confirmed and to operate

even today. As a result, the petitioners have continued in

service.

7. Appearing for the respondents before us today, Mr. Ankur

Chhibber has handed over a copy of the letter dated 22 nd July,

2010 whereby the respondents have pointed out that with the

intention of settling court cases, by an order dated 24th

November, 1994, the surplus Lab Technicians (on account of

abolition of the said post) were temporarily transferred against

vacancies of Assistant Sub-Inspector/Pharmacists in Group

Centers for the reason that they were similar in rank and pay

scales. The petitioners were also beneficiary of this movement.

8. It has been pointed out that in the year, 1995, a new post

of Lab Technician was sanctioned by the Ministry of Home

Affairs by its order dated 26th October, 1995. Shri S.C. Sahu

(petitioner in WP(C)No.1324/1994) before us, was adjusted

against this newly created post with effect from 27th October,

1995 and an order in this regard was passed on 20th June,

1997. The grievance of S.C. Sahu in the WP(C)No.1324/1994,

therefore, stands satisfied.

9. So far as Shri Marcus and Shri Rakesh Kumar, the

petitioners in WP(C)No.2648/1994 and WP(C)No.2732/1994 are

concerned, Mr. Ankur Chhibber has drawn our attention to the

letter dated 22nd of July, 2010 conveying the sanction of the

Government for the authorization of para medical staff in

composite hospitals of the Central Para Military Forces and that

accordingly 17 posts of Assistant Sub-Inspector/Lab

Technicians were created in the CRPF. As such, the 17 surplus

Lab Technicians who were available in the service including

these two petitioners stand adjusted against these newly

created posts with effect from 12th February, 2010.

10. In view of the order dated 22 nd July, 2010, it is apparent

that the grievance of these petitioners also stands satisfied.

11. These writ petitions are accordingly rendered infructuous

and are disposed of as such.

12. Rule D.B. in these petitions is hereby discharged.

GITA MITTAL, J

J.R. MIDHA, J AUGUST 09, 2010 aj