Vasdev Sachdeva vs J & K Horticultural Produce Mkt & ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 6374 Del

*               IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                             W.P.(C) 3909/1992

                                                 Decided on : 02.12.2014
                                                   s
IN THE MATTER OF
VASDEV SACHDEVA                                                ..... Petitioner
                          Through : Mr. S.S. Dahiya and
                          Mr. L.K. Dahiya, Advocates.
                          versus

 J & K HORTICULTURAL PRODUCE MKT & PROCESSING CORPN.LTD.&
ANR                                              ..... Respondents

Through : Mr. V.K. Dhar, Advocate CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HIMA KOHLI, J (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying

inter alia that the respondent/Jammu & Kashmir Horticultural Produce

Marketing & Processing Corporation Limited be directed to regularize

his services on the post of Marketing Assistant w.e.f. 13.10.1987, the

date of his appointment, on a regular basis and to pay him the same

salary and allowances as are being paid to similarly placed

employees, along with consequential benefits.

2. Notice was issued on the present petition on 5.11.1992 and

Rule was issued on 28.9.1993. On 3.11.1999, learned counsel for the

respondents had stated that the respondent/management was and is

willing to regularize the services of the petitioner/workman but, after

giving the joining report, he did not cooperate in completing the other

formalities as per the general order dated 3.5.1995, whereby the

regularization of the petitioner's services along with others has been

made by the respondent/ management. Counsel for the petitioner

had responded to the above by stating that the petitioner would

report to duty and cooperate in completing all the formalities for the

purpose of regularization of his services and he requested that the

respondent ought to pay the same emoluments to the petitioner as

were being paid to other similarly placed workers.

3. In view of the aforesaid submission made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was granted liberty to report

to duty within ten days and co-operate with the respondent/

management in completing the formalities for the purpose of

regularization of his services. With the aforesaid observations, the

matter was adjourned to 31.1.2000.

4. On 31.1.2000, learned counsel for the respondents had

informed the Court that the petitioner had joined duty on 4.11.1999

and had given his joining report and his attendance was being duly

marked. However, it was pointed out that the petitioner had not

completed the formalities as required to be undertaken in terms of

the order dated 3.5.1999, which statement was disputed by the

counsel for the petitioner. Thereafter, the petition remained lingering

for one reason or the other.

5. On 20.2.2002, it was finally recorded that as Rule had been

issued in the writ petition on 28.9.1993, the matter be listed in the

category of 'regular matters' in due course.

6. On 15.11.2006, when the petition came for arguments, learned

counsel for the petitioner had stated that he did not wish to pray for

regularization and as a result, the said prayer was deleted. As a

matter of fact, since all the remaining prayers were consequential in

nature and emanated from the first relief of regularization prayed for

by the petitioner, in view of the aforesaid statement, the writ petition

was rendered infructuous on said date. However, at the request of

counsels for the parties, who had sought time to file a written

synopsis, the matter was renotified for 15.12.2006. Finally, on

2.7.2008, the writ petition was dismissed in default.

7. On 19.1.2009, the petitioner filed an application for seeking

restoration of the writ petition, which was allowed, vide order dated

17.8.2009, and the petition was restored to its original position. The

petition came to be dismissed in default for a second time on

15.11.2011, as none had appeared for the petitioner. The petitioner

yet again filed an application for restoration of the petition, that was

listed on 23.1.2012 and notice was issued to the respondents. Vide

order dated 10.7.2012, the restoration application was allowed and

the petition was restored to its original position.

8. On 22.11.2012, after going through the records, it was noticed

that vide order dated 3.5.1995, the services of the petitioner had

been regularized in the pay scale of Rs.750-940/- w.e.f. 1.4.1995 as a

Tally Clerk Grade-I. However, learned counsel for the respondents

had submitted that the petitioner did not complete the requisite

formalities pursuant to the order dated 3.5.1995 and he did not agree

to join duty as a Tally Clerk Grade-I, the post on which he was

regularized. He further pointed out that nothing survived for a

decision in the present petition in view of the statement made by the

learned counsel for the petitioner on 15.11.2006 to the effect that the

petitioner did not press for regularization.

9. After hearing the counsels for the parties, the submission of the

counsel for the petitioner was recorded to the effect that his client

who was about 45-50 years of age at that time and was ready to join

the duty as a Tally Clerk, and if he would be granted permission by

the respondent to join the said post, he would not claim the back

arrears from 1.4.1995 onwards and would claim notional promotion

for the gap years. In view of the above submission, learned counsel

for the respondents was directed to obtain instructions from the

management.

10. On 14.8.2014, counsel for the respondents informed the Court

that the respondent/management was not agreeable to the aforesaid

suggestion that had fallen from the counsel for the petitioner. He had

further pointed out that in view of the submission made by the

counsel for the petitioner on 15.11.2006, nothing further survives for

adjudication in the present petition.

11. Having perused the prayers made in the present petition and

taking into consideration the fact that on 15.11.2006 learned counsel

for the petitioner had stated that he did not wish to press the relief for

regularization, which prayer was accordingly deleted, the remaining

prayers being only consequential in nature, as on date, nothing

further survives for adjudication in the present petition. The writ

petition is accordingly disposed of having been rendered infructuous.

12. Needless to state that if the petitioner proposes to seek his legal

remedies against the respondent/management based on the letter

dated 3.5.1995, whereunder he was granted regular appointment to

the post of Tally Clerk Grade-I, he shall be entitled to do so in

accordance with law.

13. The petition is disposed of, while leaving the parties to bear

their own costs.

                                                      (HIMA KOHLI)
DECEMBER 02, 2014                                        JUDGE
sk