Friday, 24, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Shri Bal Kishan & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 3946 Del

Citation : 2011 Latest Caselaw 3946 Del
Judgement Date : 12 August, 2011

Delhi High Court
Shri Bal Kishan & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 12 August, 2011
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+               Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5850/2011

%                             Date of Decision: August 12, 2011


Shri Bal Kishan & Ors.                   ....Petitioner
                  Through     Ms. Maninder Acharya with
                              Mr. Yashish Chandra, Advocates.

                    VERSUS

Union of India & Ors.                     .....Respondents
                 Through      Mr. R.V. Sinha, Mr. R.N. Singh and
                              Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates.

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

                              ORDER

The present writ petition filed by 16 petitioners impugns the

order dated 12th May, 2010, passed by the Central Administrative

Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (Tribunal, for short)

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

the petitioners were granted temporary status and even if they are

not entitled to regularization, the respondent could have

continued with their employment after preparing an all India

seniority list. It is submitted that the principle of last to come first

to go, has not been adhered to by the respondent.

3. The petitioners have rightly not pressed their regularization

in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary,

State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3), 2006(4) SCC 1. It

may be noticed that the Tribunal has also recorded that the

Original Applications were filed in 2008 whereas the services of

the petitioners were terminated vide order dated 31st January,

2004. Thus, the plea of limitation was raised, but the respondent

did not seriously press the same.

4. The main contention raised by the petitioners is that the

principle of 'last to come first to go' was not followed. The said

contention has been rightly rejected by the Tribunal on the ground

that the petitioners were appointed for specific work at NSG at

Manesar. After the work was over, the site was handed over to

NSG, Manesar on 31st January, 2004. CPWD carries out

operations all over India and, therefore, it is not possible for them

to have all India seniority list and accordingly apply the principle

of 'last to come first to go' on all India basis.

5. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the

present writ petition and the same is dismissed in limine.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE August 12, 2011 kkb

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter