Delhi High Court
Jawaid Rahmani & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 10 February, 2012
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 10th February, 2012
+ R.P.789-90/2011
IN
W.P.(C) No. 857/2011
% JAWAID RAHMANI & ANR. ....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Arjun Harkauli, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Mr.
D.S. Mahendru, Mr. Ritesh Kumar,
Mr. Siddharth, Adv. for R-1/UOI.Mr.
Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Adv. with Dr. Saif
Mahmood, Adv. for R-2&R-
3/Review Applicants.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
JUDGMENT
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The respondent no.2 Shri Hamidullah Bhat and the respondent no.3
National Council for Promotion of Urdu Language (NCPUL) both seek
review of the judgment dated 9th December, 2011 disposing of the writ
petition, in so far as holding the respondent no.2 Shri Hamidullah Bhat
entitled to continue as the Director of the respondent no.3 NCPUL till
attaining the age of 58 years only and being not entitled to any extension
thereafter, even if available to the government servants.
2. We have in the judgment dated 9th December, 2011 itself noticed that
though not subject matter of pleadings but the arguments in the writ petition
had veered around to, whether the respondent no.2 is entitled to continue till
the age of 58 years or till the increased age of superannuation of 60 years.
The respondents, though not disputing the said position, have sought review
contending that owing to the aforesaid aspect being not dealt with in
pleadings, certain documents remained to be cited. Reliance in this regard is
placed on:-
a. OM No.25012/8/98-Estt.(A) dated 30th May, 1998 of the
Department of Personnel and Training, GOI raising the age of
retirement of employees of autonomous organizations to 60
years, at par with the Central Government employees.
b. Minutes of the meeting held on 26th/ 27th October, 1998 of the
Executive Board of NCPUL adopting the aforesaid OM dated
30th May, 1998.
On the basis thereof it is contended that the respondent no.2 is
entitled to continue as Director of NCPUL till the age of 60 years.
3. Though we have in the judgment of which review is sought
sufficiently dealt with the aforesaid aspect but still notice of the review
petitions was issued and the petitioner/non-review applicant has filed replies
thereto. It is pleaded that the respondents/review applicants without
complying with the judgment (in as much as the respondent no.2 has already
attained the age of 58 years but is still continuing as the Director of the
respondent no.3 NCPUL) cannot seek review thereof; that the respondent
no. 2 was the first Director of the respondent no.3 NCPUL and was not
engaged under the Central Government Fundamental Service Rules
applicable to the other employees of the respondent no.3 NCPUL but was
engaged on special terms & conditions setting his age of retirement as 58
years and would thus remain unaffected by the amendment in the FSR
enhancing the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years; that even
otherwise as per the subsequent Recruitment rules framed in the year 2006
for the post of Director, the tenure of Director is to be of three years only;
that the minutes aforesaid of the meeting of the Executive Board do not
apply to the post of Director; that though the documents filed along with the
review application were not part of the pleadings but had been referred to at
the time of hearing of the writ petition.
4. We have heard the counsels.
5. The counsel for the petitioner/non review applicant is correct in
contending that all the aforesaid aspects already stand considered and dealt
within the judgment dated 9th December, 2011. The minutes of the
meeting of the Executive Board now shown do not persuade us to form an
opinion that there is any error apparent in the judgment requiring review.
6. No ground for review is made out. Dismissed.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
FEBRUARY 10, 2012
'pp'..
