Delhi High Court
Vijay Kumar vs Uoi & Anr. on 19 August, 2011
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 19th August, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 4023/2011
VIJAY KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Dr.L.S.Chaudhary, Advocate
versus
UOI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, ASG with
Ms.Sapna Chauhan, Mr.Bhagat
Singh and Mr.Yash Wardhan
Tiwari, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. This is the second round of litigation being fought. The
first was fought when WP(C) No.7115/2002 filed by
petitioner was decided in his favour by a Division Bench of
this Court on 27.8.2008.
2. At the earlier round of litigation, 3 grievances raised by
the petitioner were considered. First was his not being
treated to be on duty when he was undergoing training, as
an essential part of the diploma course undertaken by the
petitioner in pharmacy, from M.S.Ramaiah College of
Pharmacy. The second was of expenses incurred by him
while completing the Pharmacy course not being refunded
to him; and lastly his issue with respect to 6 persons, viz.,
Sher Singh, Gautam Ram Saukata, Ram Singh, Manohar
Singh, Raghubir Singh Taulia and Kishan Singh being
promoted as SI (Pharmacist) and petitioner being denied
said benefit. Petitioner claimed that benefit accorded to
said 6 persons needs to be extended to him.
3. The petition filed by the petitioner succeeded with
directions being issued requiring the respondents to treat
period spent on training by the petitioner while completing
the diploma course as on duty and this entailed emoluments
to be paid to the petitioner for said period. On the issue of
claim for reimbursement, it was directed that the
department would consider the bills submitted by the
petitioner and would do the needful. As regards the third
plea of parity with said 6 persons, department was directed
to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion and if it
was found that he was at par with the 6 persons, to promote
him.
4. For reasons which are only known to the petitioner and
have not been disclosed by him, he furnished the requisite
bills for reimbursement after 2 years and 4 months of the
order dated 27.8.2008 being passed. He submitted the
reimbursement bills on 27.12.2010.
5. The department considered his claim for being
appointed as a SI (Pharmacist) and declined the same.
6. As regards period to be treated as spent on duty when
petitioner was undergoing training, an essential component
of the diploma course, needful has been done.
7. Instant writ petition has been filed praying that
respondents be directed to appoint petitioner as SI
(Pharmacist) w.e.f. 14.6.2001 i.e. the date when the
petitioner obtained diploma in Pharmacy. Claim for
reimbursement being declined, prayer made is to issue a
mandamus to the respondents to reimburse the amount
spent by the petitioner when undergoing the course in
Pharmacy.
8. As regards petitioner's claim for promotion is
concerned, suffice would it be to state that Sher Singh,
Gautam Ram Saukata, Ram Singh, Manohar Singh, Raghubir
Singh Taulia and Kishan Singh were never promoted as SI
(Pharmacist). They being qualified to be appointed as SI
(Pharmacists), while working under the respondents, applied
when direct recruitment was effected in the year 1993 for
the post of SI (Pharmacist). Possessing the requisite
qualifications, all of them competed at the selection by way
of direct recruitment and this is the reason why they were
appointed as SI (Pharmacist) in the year 1993.
9. Petitioner never responded to the advertisement in
question. He could not for the reason petitioner obtained
diploma in Pharmacy in the year 2001. Thus, petitioner's
claim for parity with said 6 persons for promotion had rightly
been declined.
10. As regards the prayer made for reimbursement of the
money spent to undertake the diploma course in Pharmacy,
no relief could be granted to the petitioner for 2 reasons. In
the earlier writ petition he had claimed having spent only
`20,000/- and for unexplainable reasons the claim has now
been raised to `6,15,012/-.
11. Petitioner has not explained as to how has the claim
inflated.
12. Secondly SR-194(A), pertaining to reimbursement,
requires bills to be submitted within 1 year of completion of
the course. The inflated bills have been submitted by the
petitioner after 10 years and needless to state it would be
impossible for the respondents to verify the genuineness of
the claims. We highlight that in the earlier writ petition
being WP(C) No.7115/2002, the petitioner has averred that
he was entitled to reimbursement of only `22,000/-.
13. We may also note that there are serious discrepancies
in the bills pertaining to sum of `22,000/-, submitted by the
petitioner in the year 2000 and the bills which he has
submitted pertaining to the said sum, at the second stage.
The discrepancies have been highlighted in para 16 of the
counter affidavit as under:-
"the bills attached by the petitioner in WP(C)
No.7115/2002 consisted of a bill of `10,000/-,
dated 28.9.98, and a bill for `12,000/-, dated
02.02.2000. It is brought out that these bills
were again submitted by the petitioner on
27.12.2010 (Annexure R-3 colly). A comparative
study of Annexure R-1 and R-3 make it
abundantly clear that these were resubmitted in
a different form and appearance, where even the
bill numbers were found to be different and so
are the headings. Also, as per the earlier Bill the
Fee for 2nd Year D.Pharm. was shown as a
cheque payment, whereas in the said new Bill
produced on 27.12.2010, it was shown as cash
payment."
14. We find no merit in the writ petition and hence dismiss
the same but refrain from imposing any costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 19, 2011
dk
