Prof.P.N.Bhat vs Uoi & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 3104 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           WP(C) No.2656/2003

%                      Date of Decision: 04.07.2011

Prof. P.N. Bhat                                          .... Petitioner

                     Through Mr.Dinesh Singh, Advocate

                                Versus

UOI & Ors.                                            .... Respondents

                     Through Mr.Gagan Mathur, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

1.      Whether reporters of Local papers                YES
        may 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?

ANIL KUMAR, J.

* CM No.22124/2010

The applicant/petitioner has sought directions to the

respondents to release the payment of difference between ".....pay

less the subsistence allowance....." for the duration between 16th

May, 1990 to 6th September, 1990 and between 24th October, 1990 to

7th August, 1991 with the appropriate interest at the rate of 9% per

annum, claiming an amount of Rs.4,25,024/- and also directions to

release payment of gratuity (DCRG) allegedly illegally withheld by the

WP(C) No.2656/2003

respondents amounting to Rs.3,25,000/- as on 1st November, 1997

along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, amounting to

Rs.9,82,675/- as on 31st October, 2010. The applicant has also

sought directions to the respondents to release the alleged legitimate

Leave Encashment benefit to the petitioner amounting to

Rs.1,96,500/- as on 1st November, 1997 at the rate of 9% per annum

amounting to Rs.5,94,140/- as on 31st October, 2010.

The applicant has contended that the above noted writ petition

in which the present application has been filed, seeks the quashing

of the order dated 17th December, 2002 passed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA 3223/2002 as well

as the quashing of Office Memorandums dated 25th September, 1997

and 31st October, 1997 issuing charge sheets against the petitioner.

By the Office Memorandum dated 25th September, 1997 it was

proposed that an inquiry be conducted into the alleged misconduct

or misbehaviour on the part of the petitioner. Thereafter by Office

Memorandum dated 31st October, 1997, another inquiry was

proposed in respect of the imputations of other misconducts and

misbehaviour as against the petitioner.

WP(C) No.2656/2003

The petitioner had sought quashing of Charge Sheet/Office

Memorandum dated 25th September, 1997 and 31st October, 1997 on

the ground that there had been unreasonable delay in conducting

the inquiry in respect of the charges pertaining to the period between

1984 to 1987 and on the ground that the petitioner had retired on

31st October, 1997.

The Tribunal had dismissed the original application of the

petitioner/applicant on the ground that the charge sheets had been

served before the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation

and also since the inquiry officer who had been appointed in the

matter had resigned and the second one had been appointed only in

August, 2002. The Tribunal had directed that the inquiry be

completed within a period of six months from the date of the receipt

of the copy of the order dated 17th December, 2002.

It was not the subject matter of the original application before

the Tribunal whether or not to release the payment of difference

between the ".....pay less the subsistence allowance....." and the

payment of gratuity as well as the payment of the leave encashment

benefits. This is also not disputed that the other writ petitions being

WP(C) No. 5695/2003 and WP(C) No.8245/2008 are pending

between the parties.

WP(C) No.2656/2003

The applicant cannot enlarge the scope of the original

application filed before the Tribunal which was dismissed by the

Tribunal by order dated 17th October, 2002 by seeking the present

relief in the application in the writ petition filed against the order of

dismissal of his original application. In any case, decision of the

present application in the present writ petition will impact the

decision of the other writ petitions pending between the parties.

The reliefs sought by the petitioner/applicant cannot be

granted as interim reliefs. Whether the petitioner is entitled for

reliefs claimed in the application or not can be decided only after

adjudicating about the punishment imposed upon the petitioner

after conducting the inquiries in respect of which the other matters

are pending.

In the circumstances, the petitioner/applicant has not been

able to make out sufficient grounds to grant the reliefs claimed in

respect of the release of the payment of difference between "....pay

less the subsistence allowance....", payment of gratuity and payment

of the alleged leave encashment as interim reliefs.

By order dated 26th April, 2011, it has already been ordered

that the connected writ petitions bearing WP(C) No. 8245/2008 and

WP(C) No.2656/2003

WP(C)No. 5695/2003 and the present writ petition be heard together.

In the circumstances, it will not be appropriate to grant the relief

sought by the petitioner/applicant as interim reliefs, pursuant to the

above noted application of the petitioner.

For the foregoing reasons, we are not inclined to grant any

reliefs to the petitioner/applicant at this stage. The application is,

therefore, dismissed.

W.P.(C) No.2656/2003

List this writ petition along with W.P.(C) No.8245/2008 &

W.P.(C) No.5695/2003, in the category of „Regular Matters of Senior

Citizens‟ according to their seniority.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

JULY 04, 2011 rs

WP(C) No.2656/2003