Delhi High Court
Ashok Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors. on 22 November, 2012
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : November 22, 2012
+ WP(C) 7236/2012
ASHOK KUMAR ...Petitioner
Represented by: Ms.Rekha Palli, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner holds the rank of a Lt.Colonel in the Indian
Army and based on his qualifications and experience was deputed to
work in the office of the Directorate of Quality Assurance (DGQA) on
December 28, 2008 and after two years became eligible for being
permanently absorbed in DGQA, which in the parlance of the department
is called Permanent Secondment. His case for Permanent Secondment
was considered by a Board and notwithstanding the Indian Army
according its consent for petitioner's Permanent Secondment, the Board
constituted held against petitioner's Permanent Secondment holding he
not being fit for Permanent Secondment in DGQA resulting in the
petitioner filing WP(C) No.5223/2012 alleging mala fide against
Lt.General V.K.Mehta and pleading that at his behest the Addl.Director
General Mr.U.V.Dasgupta made interpolations in the Annual
Confidential Rolls of the petitioner.
3. The writ petition succeeded inasmuch as this Court noted
interpolations made to show the petitioner as a person with negative traits
resulting in the writ petition being allowed as per order dated September
14, 2012. The interpolated remarks were expunged and a direction was
issued that petitioner's entitlement for Permanent Secondment would be
reconsidered afresh.
4. Reconsidering the matter afresh the decision conveyed to the
petitioner is that having not worked in the Quality Control Cell of
DGQA, he would not be absorbed in DGQA, which reasoning is
questioned by the petitioner as an outcome of : come what may, we will
not absorb you; attitude of the respondents.
5. We note that the petitioner has been since repatriated to the
Indian Army.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents informs that on a
reconsideration of the matter the Director General DGQA has decided
that the petitioner could work with the organization for another two years
and would be assigned work in the Quality Control Cell i.e. where the
work relates to Quality Assurance activities and upon reviewing his
performance in said cell a decision would be taken whether or not to
permanently absorb the petitioner in DGQA, and learned counsel for the
petitioner on instructions from the petitioner accepts the same as a fair
resolution of the dispute.
7. On the hope and belief that the past would be forgotten and
fair decision would be taken when the time comes for petitioner's
Permanent Secondment in DGQA, in view of the events which have
transpired during the pendency of the writ petition we dispose of the same
recording DGQA's willingness to take back the petitioner for a period of
two years and consider his Permanent Secondment thereafter and that in
these two years the petitioner would be assigned work in the Quality
Control Cell.
8. Since the Indian Army had already indicated its willingness
for petitioner's Permanent Secondment in DGQA we direct the MS
Branch of the Indian Army to forthwith relieve the petitioner to enable
him to join DGQA.
9. No costs.
10. DASTI.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(MANMOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 22, 2012
dk
