Ashok Kumar Shrimali vs Union Of India & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 1624 Del

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          Date of decision: 22nd March, 2011

+                             W.P.(C) 10475/2006


ASHOK KUMAR SHRIMALI                                        ..... Petitioner
                Through:                  Mr. Deepak Gupta, Adv.

                                        Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                       ..... Respondents
                  Through:                Mr. B.V. Niren, Adv. for UOI.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may
         be allowed to see the judgment?                     No

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?              No

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported             No
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner on 30th December, 1982 joined the employment of Indian

Investment Centre (IIC) as a Junior Technical Officer and was in the year 2005

working as the Assistant Advisor in the said IIC. IIC was set up in the year

1960 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, for promotion of foreign

investment in India and establishment of joint ventures, technical collaboration

and third country ventures between Indian and foreign entrepreneurs. The said

Society was fully owned and controlled by the Department of Economic

Affairs of the Ministry of Finance of the Government of India. In or around the

year 2004, it was felt that IIC had not served the purpose for which it was set

up and that the functions for which it was set up were already being performed

by other agencies of the Government. As such, a proposal was mooted for

closure of IIC and a note for approval of the Cabinet was prepared in this

regard. The said note also considered the staff related matters consequent to

closure of IIC and recorded that the question of re-deployment of the surplus

IIC staff in the Government Ministries was considered, but was not found

possible under the existing Rules. As such, Voluntary Retirement Scheme

(VRS) of the said staff of IIC was proposed. The approval of the Cabinet was

sought for the said VRS being made available to the employees of IIC and for

dissolution of IIC.

2. The Cabinet Committee in its meeting held on 27th October, 2004

approved the said proposal but also directed that the Ministry of Overseas

Indian Affairs (MOIA) "may" utilize the services of some of the personnel,

building and equipment of IIC for their activities.

3. In pursuance of the aforesaid, VRS was offered to the employees of IIC

including to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not

inclined to accept the said Scheme and during the period of three months when

the said Scheme was open, made repeated enquiries from IIC and various

government agencies as to the other options available to him; that he was

however not informed of the direction aforesaid of the Cabinet of utilization of

some of the staff of IIC by the MOIA. He thus contends that he on the last date

till when the Scheme was so open, applied for VRS and in pursuance whereto

the benefits under the Scheme were received by him. The petitioner further

claims that subsequently upon learning of the direction aforesaid of the Cabinet

and benefit whereof has not been extended, he again represented and upon not

meeting with any success ultimately filed this petition claiming the relief of re-

deployment in the MOIA or any other Ministry or instrumentalities of the State

with all consequential benefits etc.

4. Notice of the petition was issued. A counter affidavit has been filed on

behalf of the respondent in which it is inter alia pleaded that though Cabinet

had "desired" utilization of services of some of the personnel of IIC in the

MOIA but the same also was not possible. Reliance is placed on the letter

dated 26th July, 2005 of MOIA filed by the petitioner himself as Annexure-P2

to the petition in which MOIA has expressed inability to absorb any of the

personnel of IIC and has shown willingness to only grant them de-novo

contractual appointments renewable annually and terminable with three months

notice.

5. The matter appears to have been partly argued before this Court on 3 rd

April, 2008 when the petitioner appears to have argued discrimination also.

Accordingly, an additional affidavit was permitted to be filed. The petitioner in

the said additional affidavit has given names of 10 employees of IIC who after

leaving IIC were stated to be working in the Ministry of Finance, Government

of India. The respondents have filed a reply to the said affidavit in which it is

categorically stated that none of the ex-employees of IIC were re-employed on

permanent basis and the persons named were engaged only contractually and

not on the basis of being ex-employees of IIC.

6. The counsel for the petitioner, petitioner himself and the counsel for the

respondent No.1 UOI have been heard.

7. The sole argument of the petitioner is that the direction of the Cabinet

requiring utilization of personnel of IIC in the MOIA has not been complied

with and that he is entitled to the relief claimed in compliance thereof.

8. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent No.1 has urged that the

Cabinet had otherwise approved in toto the proposal put before it and had

merely expressed a desire as would be apparent from the use of the expression

"may utilize the services of some personnel" in the Minutes of the Meeting of

the Cabinet Committee. It is further contended that the petitioner having

voluntarily applied for retirement and having obtained all the benefits, is now

not entitled to maintain the petition. On enquiry, as to whether all the

employees of IIC had availed of the VRS, it is informed that only one Mr.

Rathi had not availed of the VRS and had subsequently filed a writ petition in

this Court and in which only a direction was issued for abiding by the letter

dated 26th July, 2005 (supra) i.e. of contractual appointment.

9. Upon further enquiry as to whether the petitioner was also made any

offer of contractual appointment, it is stated that since the petitioner had availed

of the VRS, there was no occasion for making any such offer to him.

10. From the Minutes of the Meeting of the Cabinet Committee, I am unable

to decipher any decision making it mandatory for the employees of IIC to be

absorbed in the MOIA. The proposal put up before the Cabinet had itself

recorded that the said aspect has been examined and not found legally feasible.

The Cabinet Committee did not comment on the same or did not seek review of

the same and rather accepted the same. It only expresses a desire for

absorption of some of the personnel and which would naturally be, if possible.

The petitioner has not been able to show any possibility of absorption.

Moreover, though the petitioner claims to have availed of VRS under protest

but the documents filed by the respondents along with the counter affidavit do

not show any such notation of protest. Rather the petitioner sought voluntary

retirement in terms of the Scheme offered.

11. I have also perused the judgment dated 22 nd March, 2006 in W.P.(C)

No.12119/2005 preferred by Mr. Mehar Singh Rathee. This Court, therein,

negatived the claims as made by the petitioner herein. It was held that the

employees of IIC were not recruited in accordance with the process prescribed

for recruitment of Central Government employees and could not be said to be

holding a civil post answering the description under Article 311 of the

Constitution of India. It was further held that Mr. Mehar Singh Rathee was not

entitled to absorption in the Central Government as was claimed by him.

However, after holding so, only a suggestion was given to consider feasibility

of offering some employment, in terms of letter dated 26 th July, 2005 (supra) or

otherwise, to Mr. Mehar Singh Rathee.

12. What has been held qua Mr. Mehar Singh Rathee applies equally to

petitioner also. The petitioner has no legal right. The petitioner cannot also be

shown the indulgence, as shown to Mr. Mehar Singh Rathee, the petitioner

having availed the benefit of VRS.

13. The petitioner is thus not found entitled to the relief claimed.

The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 22nd MARCH, 2011 „gsr‟