Delhi High Court
Uoi And Another vs Saroop Chand on 25 April, 2011
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
WRIT PETITION (C) NO.1193/2005
Date of decision: 25th April, 2011
UOI AND ANOTHER ....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Jitender Kumar Singh, Advocate.
Versus
SAROOP CHAND ....Respondent
Through: Mr. Biswajit Singh, Advocate for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment? No.
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.
ANIL KUMAR, J.(Oral)
WP(C) No.1193/2005 & CM No.5554/2011
1. By a detailed order dated 3rd March, 2011, this Court had
prima facie held that the order of removal of the deceased husband of
WP(C) No.1193/2005 & CM No.5554/2011 Page 1 of 6
the respondent Smt. Usha was liable to be set aside and the order of
the Tribunal was not liable to be interfered with and was not liable to
be set aside.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner realizing that the order
of Tribunal was going to be sustained by the Court which would
entail financial consequences for the petitioner, had taken an
adjournment to take instructions whether the respondent Smt.
Usha, wife of late Shri Saroop Chand, could be given compassionate
appointment on her foregoing the back wages of her husband.
Counsel for the respondent on instructions had also agreed to give
up the claim of wages of her deceased husband in case of
respondent, Smt. Usha being appointed on compassionate grounds.
3. Today the learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions
has stated that the petitioner is not ready to appoint the respondent,
Smt. Usha, on compassionate grounds. The petitioner has rather
filed an application with an additional affidavit and certain
documents contending inter alia, that the record pertaining to
medical examination of late Sh. Saroop Chand have been now traced
and found by the Department.
WP(C) No.1193/2005 & CM No.5554/2011 Page 2 of 6
4. No reason has been disclosed as to why this record could not
be produced either before the Tribunal or even before this Court
earlier as this petition was admitted on 24th January, 2005 and
detailed arguments were heard on 3rd March, 2011 by this Court.
5. No details have been given as to why this record could not be
traced earlier. No facts have been disclosed which would show lack
due diligence on the part of the petitioner in the matter. In the
application in para 2 it is alleged:
"2. That the additional affidavit and the documents
are very relevant for proper adjudication of the present
matter. The records pertaining to the medical
examination of Sh. Swaroop Chand has been traced and
found by the department. Hence same are being placed
before this Hon'ble Court.
6. In the circumstances, it is apparent that the instant
application for additional documents has been filed by the petitioner
only with a view to improve its case after the detailed order by this
Court dated 3rd March, 2011 was passed, where this Court had
prima facie concluded that the order of the Tribunal is not to be
interfered with. It will be pertinent to notice that the Tribunal in its
order date 21st May, 2003 had noticed that the husband of the
WP(C) No.1193/2005 & CM No.5554/2011 Page 3 of 6
respondent, Smt. Usha, had been working as safai karamchari and
he had become mentally incapacitated and the counsel for the
petitioner had agreed before the Tribunal to consider the
representation dated 5th September, 2001 and consequently the
Tribunal had directed the petitioner to consider the representation
dated 5th September, 2001 seeking retirement of husband of Smt.
Usha, who was applicant no.1 before the Tribunal, on the ground of
medical unfitness in terms of PS 11109.
7. The petitioner had sought review of said order of the Tribunal
dated 21st May, 2003. Along with the review application it was not
disclosed by the petitioner that the Medical examination of the
husband of the respondent was done and the report dated 1st
October, 2003 was given.
8. The review before the Tribunal was declined by order dated
15th July, 2004. No reasons have been disclosed by the petitioner as
to why the alleged documents are now produced and could not be
produced before the Tribunal before the review of order dated 21st
May, 2003 was sought by the petitioner. Rather before the Tribunal
on being pointing out various discrepancies which were considered
by the Tribunal regarding the alleged removal order which was not
WP(C) No.1193/2005 & CM No.5554/2011 Page 4 of 6
communicated, the counsel for the petitioner had conceded that he
had no proof of the communication of the removal order on Shri
Saroop Chand, husband of Smt. Usha.
9. Shri Saroop Chand has expired during the pendency of the
present writ petition which has been filed impugning the order dated
21st May, 2003 and order declining review by order dated 15th July,
2004. In the circumstances the petitioner has failed to make out
diligence on its part and the documents now sought to be produced
by the petitioner about the alleged medical examination of late Shri
Saroop Chand who died on 11th November, 2008 cannot be taken on
record for adjudication of pleas and contentions of the parties and
therefore, the application of the petitioner to take the additional
document, alleged medical report of the Late Shri Saroop Chand also
cannot be permitted to be placed on record.
10. Under the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to allow
the application of the petitioners/applicants to produce the various
documents alleged to be medical record of the deceased Sh. Saroop
Chand and the application is, therefore, dismissed.
WP(C) No.1193/2005 & CM No.5554/2011 Page 5 of 6
11 No new grounds have been raised today by the learned counsel
for the petitioner. This Court has already held by order dated 3rd
March, 2011 that the orders of the Tribunal are not to be interfered
with in the facts and circumstances. The orders of the Tribunal do
not suffer from any such illegality or perversity which shall entail any
interference by this Court in view of the reasons recorded by this
Court in its order dated 3rd March, 2001. The writ petition is
therefore, dismissed. The petitioners shall also pay costs of
Rs.20,000/- to the respondent in the facts and circumstances. Costs
be paid within four weeks.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
APRIL 25th, 2011
dr
