Delhi High Court
Om Prakash Snehi vs Union Of India & Ors. on 12 July, 2011
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 691 OF 2007
Date of Pronouncement: July 12, 2011
OM PRAKASH SNEHI
..... Petitioner
Through None.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Meera Bhatia, Advocate
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?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 11.10.2006
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New
Delhi in O.A. No. 1715/2006, titled Shri Om Parkash Snehi vs. Union
of India and Ors. declining the original application of the petitioner
seeking quashing of orders dated 2.5.2005 and 11.07.2005 and
declining the request of the petitioner for counting his ad hoc period of
service for regular appointment.
2. On 10.09.2001, the Director Prosecution by order dated
19.09.2001 had circulated a tentative seniority list of officers
appointed on regular basis to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor
in the Directorate of Prosecution. The petitioner had contended that
his name was shown junior to the officers promoted by order dated
22.08.1994 who were in fact junior to him despite the fact that he had
already been appointed as Senior/Additional Public Prosecutor on
1.7.1994.
3. The Tribunal while considering the claim of the petitioner
considered the pleas and contentions raised on behalf of the Delhi
Senior Prosecuting Officers' Welfare Association, who had also filed an
original application being O.A. No. 1171/2006, which was also
decided by the Tribunal by its order dated 21.07.2006. It was noticed
that pursuant to the implementation of the judgment passed by the
High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous (M) No. 2275/1993 in the case
of Raj Kumar Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 22 new courts of Additional
Sessions Judges were created and consequently, 22 Additional Public
Prosecutors had to be promoted to the post of Additional Public
Prosecutor on ad hoc basis in the year 1994.
4. By order dated 22.08.1994, 14 officers were promoted
though the promotion was on ad hoc basis only and they were
regularized later on. The petitioner was appointed by order dated
1.7.1994, but he was promoted prospectively by order dated 2.5.2005.
The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that though the
posts were available but the respondents did not take any positive
steps to regularize their services earlier and he was appointed only on
ad hoc basis and his services were regularized at later stage.
5. The Tribunal considered the pleas and contentions of the
parties and held that since appointment order clearly stipulated that
ad hoc appointment would not confer any right upon the petitioner
regarding seniority as the appointment was only a stop gap
arrangement and therefore, the petitioner's claim for counting of ad
hoc service for regular appointment could be entertained and the
claim of the petitioner was declined.
6. No one had appeared on behalf of the petitioner on
6.7.2011, however, no adverse order was passed and the matter was
allowed to remain on Board in the category of 'Regular Matters'.
7. The matter was again taken up on 8.7.2011. However,
again, no one had appeared on behalf of the petitioner. This court did
not pass any adverse order against the petitioner and allowed the
matter to remain on Board in the category of 'Regular Matters'.
8. Today, again, no one has appeared on behalf of the
petitioner. In the circumstances, this Court is left with no alternative
but to dismiss the writ petition in default of appearance of petitioner
and his counsel.
9. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in default.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
July 12, 2011
rd
