Delhi High Court
Ex. Sgt. Vinod Kumar vs Gnct Of Delhi And Ors on 30 May, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
83/84/85$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2232/2011 & CM No.4770/2011 (for stay)
SGT. VINAY KUMAR SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.S. Pandey, Advocate
Versus
GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinod Wadhwa, Adv. for R-1.
Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv. for R-2&3.
Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate
AND
+ W.P.(C) 2233/2011 & CM No.4771/2011 (for stay)
EX. SGT. VINOD KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.S. Pandey, Advocate
Versus
GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinod Wadhwa, Adv. for R-1.
Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv. for R-2&3.
Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate
AND
+ W.P.(C) 2234/2011 & CM No.4772/2011 (for stay)
HAV. CLK VIRPAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.S. Pandey, Advocate
Versus
GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Vinod Wadhwa, Adv. for R-1.
Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv. for R-2&3.
Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate
1/3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 30.05.2011
1. The counsels for the respondents state and the counsel for the
petitioner confirms that as far as the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2233/2011
viz. Ex. Sergeant Vinod Kumar is concerned, he has been issued the
appointment letter and has joined the employment. Thus, W.P.(C)
No.2233/2011 does not survive and is disposed of.
2. As far as the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.2232/2011 & W.P.(C)
No.2234/2011 are concerned, the counsel for the respondents states that
though the said petitioners as per their merit are entitled to appointment but
appointment letters issued to them were cancelled owing to their not having
joined in time and now a doubt has arisen as to whether they were at all
entitled to apply in the category of "Ex Servicemen" or not. Reference in
this regard is made to the Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil
Service and Posts) Rules, 1979 as amended vide Notification dated 27 th
October, 1986 and as per which Rules, persons serving in the Armed Forces
but who on retirement from service would come in the category of "Ex
Servicemen" are permitted to apply for re-employment "one year before the
completion of their specified term of engagement". It is contended that
though the said petitioners at the time of their appointment and now, had
have less than one year left from their term of engagement but at the time of
making the application for the post had more than one year of service left.
The counsel for the respondents has however also drawn attention to the
order dated 19th September, 2008 of the Air Force providing for issuance of
a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for applying for re-employment under the
Rules aforesaid.
3. In this regard, it may be noticed that both the said petitioners along
with their application had submitted the NOC from Air Force and Army
respectively enabling them to apply in the category of Ex Servicemen.
4. I am of the opinion that the Armed Forces having issued the NOC
required to be issued for enabling the petitioners to apply for re-employment
in the category of Ex Servicemen and the Armed Forces being the
competent authority to take a decision in this regard as to whether the
petitioners notwithstanding having more than one year of service left were
entitled to apply or not, the respondents need not entertain any doubt in this
regard and ought to on the basis of the said NOC grant employment to the
petitioners also.
5. Accordingly W.P.(C) No.2232/2011 & W.P.(C) No.2234/2011 are
allowed. The orders of cancellation of appointment of the said petitioners
impugned in the petitions are quashed / set aside. The respondents to issue
appointment letters to the said petitioners within two weeks of today, with
time of at least two months for joining.
The petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
MAY 30, 2011
„gsr‟
