Union Of India vs Shekhar Sumar
2010 Latest Caselaw 128 Del

*               IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+               W.P. (C.) No.163/2010 & CMs No.317-318/2010

%                            Date of Decision: 12.01.2010

Union of India                                             .... Petitioner
                         Through Mr.Rakesh Mittal, Advocate

                                        Versus

Shekhar Sumar                                                    .... Respondent
                         Through         None
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, General Manager, Northern Railways, has

challenged the order dated 5th August, 2009 passed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.2684 of

2008, Shri Shekhar Suman v. Union of India directing the petitioner to

reconsider the claim of the respondent after he qualified the

examination the expenses for which were reimbursed by the petitioner

despite dis-continuation of vocational course in Railway Commercial

Scheme and has directed the petitioner offer him an appointment to the

post of Commercial Clerk and to pass a speaking and reasoned order in

this regard.

The respondent had spent a year in vocational course in Railway

Commercial under its scheme. As the respondent was not offered an

appropriate appointment, he had approached the Tribunal in OA

No.2431 of 2003, where the Tribunal had directed the petitioner by

order dated 6th July, 2004 to make necessary arrangement for

completion of vocational course in Railway Commercial under the said

scheme for the respondent in any school in any Railway zone.

The petitioner did not challenge the order dated 6th July, 2004

directing them to allow the respondent to complete the vocational

course in Railway Commercial in any Railway zone and to give benefit of

completion of the railway course and then to give an appointment to the

post of commercial clerk. However, later on the petitioner sought review

of the order on the ground that since the scheme has been dis-

continued so the respondent cannot be admitted to a school in any

railway zone. The respondent had also filed a contempt petition being

C.C.P. No.402 of 2004. The review petition of the petitioner and the

contempt petition of the respondent were disposed of by order dated 2nd

August, 2005 where considering the facts and circumstances, the

petitioner had agreed for admission of the respondent in Class XI in the

school of his choice and the petitioner agreed to reimburse the expenses

to the respondent.

The petitioner did not challenge the order dated 2nd August, 2005

whereby the respondent was permitted to attend any school of his

choice and the petitioner had to reimburse his expenses so that the

order dated 6th July, 2004 in OA No.2431 of 2003 could be complied

with whereby the petitioner was directed to make arrangements for

completion of vocational course in Railway Commercial under the

scheme and benefit was to be given to the respondent to appoint him as

commercial clerk.

After respondent completed the commercial course, expenses for

which were reimbursed by the petitioner, and sought his appointment

as the Commercial Clerk which was denied by the petitioner which led

to filing of OA No.2684 of 2008, where order dated 5th August, 2009 has

been passed directing the petitioner to offer him an appointment to the

post of the Commercial Clerk.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasized that the

Scheme was closed in 2005 and, therefore, the respondent is not

entitled for appointment to the post of Commercial Clerk. Order dated

6th July, 2004 was passed against the petitioner directing them to give

an appointment to the respondent as commercial clerk. The said order

was not challenged by the petitioner. Though the said order was not

challenged by the petitioner, yet they did not comply with the same

resulting into filing of contempt petition by the respondent. Despite the

alleged closure of VCRC Scheme in 2005, the order dated 2nd August,

2005 was passed on the review application of the petitioner and the

contempt application filed by the respondent whereby the petitioner had

agreed for admission of respondent in any school of his choice and they

had also agreed for reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the

respondent. After agreeing for completion of the course by the

respondent in a school, the petitioner cannot deny the benefit of

completion of course and of the scheme to him on the ground that that

scheme was closed in 2005.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in the facts and

circumstances, is unable to show any illegality or such irregularity in

the order of the Tribunal which shall entail interference by this Court in

exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition in the facts and circumstances is, therefore, without

any merit and it is dismissed. Applications are also disposed of.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

January 12, 2010                                       MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'ag/Dev'