Delhi Development Authority & ... vs Smt. Laxmi Khurana
2011 Latest Caselaw 104 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          W.P.(C) No. 8755/2010

%                       Date of Decision: 07.01.2011

Delhi Development Authority & Anr.                        .... Petitioners

                        Through Dr.Indra Pratap Singh, Advocate.

                                 Versus

Smt. Laxmi Khurana                                       .... Respondent
                        Through Nemo.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

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 petitioners, Delhi Development Authority & Another, have

challenged the order dated 14th July, 2010 passed in OA No.1458 of

2008, titled 'Smt.Laxmi Khurana v. Delhi Development Authority &

Another' directing the petitioners to consider the claim of the

respondent as Senior Hindi Translator in accordance with the

recruitment rules, and in case of her being declared fit otherwise, offer

promotion to her at least from 2001 with notional seniority.

By impugned order dated 14th July, 2010, the petitioners were

directed to consider the claim of the respondent within a period of three

months. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that since a

contempt petition has been filed by the respondent, the above noted

writ petition has been filed by the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that

the respondent does not have any claim for promotion to the post of

Senior Hindi Translator w.e.f. 2001, as per recruitment rules prevailing

at that time. However, since the ratio has now been fixed by resolution

No.54 of 2008 dated 23rd July, 2008, the claim of the respondent to the

promotion to the post of Senior Hindi Translator would be considered at

appropriate time as has been categorically stated in the grounds in the

petition filed on behalf of the petitioners.

Since the petitioners themselves have contended that ratio has

been fixed by resolution No.54 of 2008 dated 23rd July, 2008 and her

claim to the promotion to the post of Senior Hindi Translator would be

considered and as the direction of the tribunal is that the claim of the

respondent as Senior Hindi Translator be strictly considered in

accordance with the recruitment rules and in case of the respondent

being declared fit otherwise, she may be offered promotion at least from

2001 with notional seniority, the order of the tribunal cannot be termed

to be illegal or unsustainable or require any interference in the facts

and circumstances.

The tribunal while passing the order dated 14th July, 2010 has

held that the respondent comes in feeder category for seniority of Hindi

Translator and non-consideration of her claim despite acquiring

eligibility in 1992 is an infraction of her right. Referring to the ratio of

'Union of India & Ors v. Shantiranjan Sarkar' (2009) 3 SCC 90 holding

that the delay in filing the original application should not be held to be

a bar in granting an equitable relief as the Union of India being a

benevolent litigant cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own

wrong. It has been further held that though the promotion cannot be

granted from the date of accrual of vacancies, but in the facts and

circumstances as respondent's claim has not been considered for

almost 18 years, it will be appropriate to grant her notional seniority

from 2001 in case the respondent is entitled for her claim to be a Senior

Hindi Translator in accordance with recruitment rules.

In the facts and circumstances, the learned counsel for the

petitioners is unable to point out any such illegality or unsustainability

in the order of the tribunal which will require any interference by this

Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India. The Tribunal had granted the time of three months to the

petitioners to consider the claim of the respondent as Senior Hindi

Translator in accordance with the recruitment rules, and in case of her

being declared fit otherwise, offer promotion to her at least from 2001

with notional seniority. No reason has been disclosed by the petitioners

as to why her claim has not been considered by the petitioners until

now, though three months time granted by the Tribunal expired on 13th

October, 2010. If the direction of the Tribunal has not been complied

with and a contempt petition has been filed by the respondent that will

not be a ground for the petitioners to maintain the present writ petition.

In the facts and circumstances the learned counsel for the petitioners

has failed to make out any grounds for 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 without any merit

and, it is therefore, dismissed.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

JANUARY 07, 2011                                VEENA BIRBAL, J.
 'VK'