Delhi High Court
Sh. Babu Lal Meena vs Controller General Of Accounts & ... on 1 February, 2010
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C.) No.637/2010
% Date of Decision: 01.02.2010
Sh. Babu Lal Meena .... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sachin Chauhan,
Versus
Controller General of Accounts & Ors. .... Respondents
Through Mr. Pankaj Prasad, 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 in NO
the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 15th December,
2009, passed in OA No. 20/2008, titled Babu Lal Meena Vs. Controller
General of Accounts dismissing the original application of the petitioner
seeking permanent absorption in the organization where the petitioner
was on deputation.
The petitioner was a peon in Central Tibetan School
Administration, Ministry of HRD and was appointed to the post of LDC
with the Controller General of Accounts, Department of Expenditure.
The appointment of the petitioner with Controller General of
Accounts, Department of Expenditure was on deputation for two years,
however it continued till 9th January, 2008 on account of extension.
During the period the petitioner was on deputation, OMs dated 14th
March, 2006 and 29th June, 2007 were issued contemplating asking for
option from the deputationists in the grade of LDC Accountant for
absorption pursuant to which the petitioner claimed his absorption as a
deputationist with Controller General of Accounts. As the petitioner was
not absorbed, he filed an original application before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench for direction to the respondent
to absorb him.
The claim of the petitioner was contested by the respondents
contending, inter-alia, that the petitioner has been granted maximum
possible extension of five years till 9th January, 2008 and for extension
beyond the period, an approval of DOPT was required. Since the
petitioner was an LDC and doing a routine job, his absorption was also
not considered indispensible and therefore approaching DOPT was also
not considered appropriate.
The Tribunal has declined the prayer of the petitioner for
absorption. The Tribunal has relied on the OM dated 28th January,
2008, contemplating withdrawal of earlier OMs dated 14th March, 2006
and 29th June, 2007 contemplating filling up the post of LDC according
to prescribed modes of recruitment rules, i.e., direct recruitment
through SCC and promotion of department candidates.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has emphatically contended
that in view of earlier OMs, the petitioner is entitled for absorption.
This, however, cannot be denied that the OMs dated 14th March, 2006
and 29th June, 2007, has since been withdrawn and if decision has
been taken to fill the post of LDCs according to the recruitment rules,
the petitioner has no ground to impugn the OM dated 28th January,
2008. In any case, the petitioner does not have any vested right to get
absorbed.
In the circumstances, the petitioner does not have any vested
right to get absorbed as a deputationist and the decision of the Tribunal
not to permit absorption of the petitioner as a deputationist, cannot be
faulted. In the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is without any
merit and it is therefore dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
FEBRUARY 01, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'rs'
