Jaiprakash & Ors. vs Uoi & Ors
2010 Latest Caselaw 5426 Del

17
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                     +    W.P.(C)No.14782-95/2006


                            Date of Decision : 29th November, 2010

%

       JAIPRAKASH & ORS.                     ..... Petitioners
                Through : Mr. Avdhesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
                          along with the petitioner.
                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. The writ petitioners have claimed that they had joined

service with the Joint Cipher Bureau of the Directorate of

Standardization and Indian Air Force under the Ministry of

Defence, Government of India. At the time of filing of the writ

petitions, the petitioners were working on the post of Offset

Machine Man Operator (Grade - I) in the Joint Directorate of

Publication (Air Headquarter) in the Ministry of Defence and

belonged to the printing press staff of the defence

establishment to that of the Government of India press

employees.

2. The petitioners have complained that the

recommendations in the Fifth Central Pay Commission are

arbitrary for the reason that they have failed to maintain parity

of scale with similar posts which are under the Ministry of

Finance, Ministry of Communication and elsewhere.

3. The above narration shows that the petitioners are in fact

civilian employees in defence service under the Ministry of

Defence. An objection was taken by Mr. Ankur Chhibber,

learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the issue

raised by the petitioners falls within the jurisdiction of the

Central Administrative Tribunal which is exercising jurisdiction

in terms of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and that the

present writ petitions could not be maintainable before this

court.

4. We may note that the writ petitions came to be filed as

back as on 29th August, 2006. This court issued notice to show

cause on 3rd October, 2006 to the respondents who sought time

to file a counter affidavit. No counter affidavit was filed till

date. In this background, on 19th March, 2007, rule was issued

and the matter was admitted for regular hearing. The

application of the petitioners bearing CM No.7653/2008 seeking

early hearing was also rejected by the court. The respondents

thereafter did not put in appearance on several dates.

5. On 10th November, 2009, the matter was placed by the

Registry before the court for consideration as to whether it

requires to be transferred to the Tribunal constituted under the

Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. In this background, by an

order passed on 20th May, 2010, faced with non-appearance on

behalf of the respondents, we had requested Mr. Ankur

Chhibber, Advocate who represents the respondents and

happened to be present in court to appear in the instant

matter. We had, on that date, after hearing counsels held that

the matter did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Armed

Forces Tribunal. The respondents were directed to file a

counter affidavit within six weeks.

6. No counter affidavit has still been filed. However, on the

previous date of 16th August, 2010, the objection with regard to

the matter falling squarely within the jurisdiction of the Central

Administrative Tribunal was urged.

In view of this objection, learned counsel for the

petitioners prays for leave to withdraw the present writ

petitions with liberty to avail the remedy before the Central

Administrative Tribunal.

7. In view of the above narration of facts, the petitioners

would be entitled to the exclusion of the period spent by them

in this court for the purposes of computation of the limitation

for filing the petitions before the Central Administrative

Tribunal. In case the petitioners file the petition before the

Central Administrative Tribunal and seek condonation of delay,

this order be placed before the tribunal for appropriate

consideration.

8. These writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with

liberty to the petitioners to avail the appropriate remedy under

the provisions of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. It shall

be open to the petitioners to file the petition before the Central

Administrative Tribunal within the period of four weeks.

9. Dasti to the parties.

GITA MITTAL, J

J.R. MIDHA, J NOVEMBER 29, 2010 mk