Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Shri Mukesh Kumar
2011 Latest Caselaw 4751 Del

*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  WRIT PETITION (C) No.7030/2011

%                                Date of Decision: September 23, 2011

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI                             ....Petitioner
                  Through              Ms. Avnish Ahlawat and Ms.
                                       Latika Chaudhary, Advocates.

                   VERSUS

SHRI MUKESH KUMAR                                 .....Respondents
                Through

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

                                 ORDER

% SANJIV KHANNA, J.

In the present writ petition filed by the Government of NCT of

Delhi the assail is to the order dated 28th April, 2011 passed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (for short, „the tribunal‟).

By the impugned decision the tribunal has allowed the original application

filed by the respondent herein Mukesh Kumar, who in terms of the

directions given by the Supreme Court in W.P.(C) 323-25/1989 decided

on 4th February, 1992, was called for interview on 14th August, 2008 and

appointed as a Peon in Ambedkar Institute of Technology on 26th August,

2008, but was removed/terminated on the ground that at the time of

joining he was 43 years and 10 months and, therefore, was over aged.

2. There is no factual dispute. It is accepted that the respondent was

engaged as a casual labourer with effect from 1st January, 1986 and it

appears that he continued to work in small breaks. Later on he along with

others was terminated leading to filing of W.P.(C) 323-25/1989 before the

Supreme Court. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by the

Supreme Court vide order dated 4th February, 1992 with a direction to the

petitioner to keep the respondent and others in a panel, if they were

registered with the employment exchange and qualified for appointment

to the relevant posts. Preference in employment shall be given to them

whenever vacancy occurs in regular course. The operative portion of the

directions given by the Supreme Court, as quoted in the impugned order,

reads as under:-

"16. In the circumstances, it is not possible to accede to the request of the petitioners that the respondents be directed to regularize them. The most that can be done for them is to direct the respondent- Delhi Administration to keep them on a panel and if they are registered with the Employment Exchange and are qualified to be appointed on the relevant posts, give them a preference in employment whenever there occurs a vacancy in the regular posts, which direction we give hereby."

3 The petitioner thereafter prepared a panel, but nothing substantial

or steps to implement the directions were taken. The respondent along

with 54 others filed O.A.No.1793/2000 before the tribunal, which was

disposed of on 11th January, 2011. The tribunal reiterated the directions

given by the Supreme Court and the petitioner was asked to take

appropriate steps so that directions given by the Supreme Court were

complied with, in letter and spirit.

4. As noted, the petitioner took their own time and only in August,

2008, the respondent was called for interview and after evaluating his

performance, he was appointed as a Peon in Ambedkar Institute of

Technology with effect from 13th October, 2008 and continued to work on

the said post for about two years. It is not the allegation of the petitioner

that respondent had misled the authorities about his date of birth or there

was any suppression of fact or forging of documents. After the respondent

had worked for more than two years, a show cause notice was issued that

pursuant to an original application filed by one Omender Singh, it was

noticed that the respondent was over aged. Therefore, his services were

terminated.

5. The tribunal after considering the peculiar facts of the present case

including the delay in appointment, the order passed by the Supreme

Court and thereafter by the tribunal and the fact that the respondent has

worked for two years, the original application has been allowed. We may

note that in case the respondent had not been appointed, the situation may

have been different. The situation may have also been different in case the

petitioner had been able to justify delay from 1992 to 2008.

6. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the present

writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine without any

order as to costs.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 NA