The Comptroller & Auditor General ... vs Shri S.Manoj Kumar & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 2862 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+              WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1617/2008

                                   Date of Pronouncement: May 27, 2011


       The Comptroller & Auditor General of India & Anr.
                                                      ..... Petitioners
                        Through    Mr. K.K.Rai, Sr. Advocates with
                                   Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate

                       versus


       Shri S.Manoj Kumar & Ors.                  ..... Respondents
                       Through          Mr. Suman Doval, Advocate

                                    WITH


                  WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 1626/2008


       The Comptroller & Auditor General of India & Anr.
                                                      ..... Petitioners
                        Through    Mr. K.K.Rai, Sr. Advocates with
                                   Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate

                       versus

       Shri Anup Kuksal & Ors.                    ..... Respondents
                        Through         Mr. Suman Doval, 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? No.
2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.



WP(C) Nos. 1617/2008 & 1626/2008                             Page 1 of 4
 ANIL KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The respondents had claimed quashing and setting aside of

communication No. 30/M.G.E(ENTT.)/58-2005(II) dated 19.01.2007

and consequent order, as under:

       "(a)    Call for the records of the case;

       (b)     Quash       and     set     aside    the     communication         No.

30/M.G.E(ENTT.)/58-2005(II) dated 19/1/2007;

(c) Consequently, pass an order to directing the

Respondents to grant deputation special allowance to

applicants from the date of joining the deputation post

and continue to grant Headquarter Special Allowance to

the applicants;

(d) Direct the Respondent to grant arrears of deputation

special allowance, with an interest @ 12 % per annum;

(e) Pass any other/further order which this Hon'ble Court

may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances

of the case."

2. The Tribunal, by order dated 25.01.2008, allowed the

application and had directed the petitioners to extend the

respondents Deputation Allowance with arrears from the date PV

Laxmi had been accorded the same and it was also directed that the

special allowance would also be made admissible to the respondents

and any discontinuance in the past would entail the arrears thereof.

3. This order of the Tribunal has been challenged by the

petitioners. During the pendency of the present writ petition, a

proposal was given by the learned counsel for the respondents on

instructions from the respondents that the issues raised by the

petitioners will not be contested by the respondents if the payments

already made to the respondents are not recovered and the

Deputation Allowance is paid to them from the date of their joining

the office of the DGA, P&T, Delhi on deputation basis.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the

petitioners have now agreed to bring the disputes to an end in

terms of communication dated 9.5.2011 addressed to the counsel

for the petitioners, a copy of which is produced by the learned

counsel for the petitioners in the Court.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions,

approbates the terms offered by the petitioners incorporated in the

letter dated 9.5.2011, a copy of which has been given to him. He

also contends that the terms incorporated in para 2 of the letter

dated 9.5.2011 addressed to Shri Gaurang Kanth, Advocate, are

acceptable to the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the parties, now pray that the petition be

disposed in terms of the aforesaid letter of 9th May, 2011.

7. Consequently, and as agreed jointly, the order dated

25.01.2008 passed in O.A. No. 1304/2007 titled as Shri S. Manoj

Kumar & Ors. vs. The Comptroller & Auditor General of India

& Anr. and O.A. No.585/2007 titled as Shri Anup Kuksal & Ors.

vs. The Comptroller & Auditor General of India & Anr. stands

modified to the extent mentioned in the aforesaid communication

dated 9th May, 2011, a copy whereof is taken on record and is

marked as Exhibit "X". The same shall form part of this order.

8. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. It is also

clarified that this concession given by petitioners to the respondents

shall not be a precedent for any other employee or any person.

9. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Parties

are left to bear their own costs.

CM APPL. NO. 3152/2008 in WP(C) No. 1617/2008 CM APPL. NO. 3163/2008 in WP(C) No. 1626/2008

10. In view of the orders passed in the main petition, this

application does not survive and the same is disposed of as such.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

MAY 27, 2011 rd