Delhi High Court
Prasanna Kumar Pincha vs Union Of India And Anr on 22 December, 2014
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9118/2014 and CM APPL. 20775/2014
Decided on: 22.12.2014
IN THE MATTER OF:
PRASANNA KUMAR PINCHA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pankaj Sinha, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jasmeet Singh, CGSC
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J.(Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was
appointed to the post of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
on 27.12.2011 for a period of three years, that expires on 27.12.2014,
praying inter alia that the respondents/Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment be restrained from appointing anyone to the said post
and from discontinuing his services till a decision is taken on his
application dated 08.07.2014 (Annexure P-2).
2. Mr.Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the
petitioner had addressed a letter dated 8.7.2014 to the Secretary,
Department of Disability Affairs, Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment, for extension of his tenure for another term in
accordance with Rule 43(B) of PwD Rules, 1996 as amended in the year
2009, followed by a reminder dated 08.12.2014, but to no avail. He
submits that as per the advertisement dated 22.10.2014 issued by the
Ministry, though the petitioner does not meet the prescribed age limit,
he has applied for appointment to the said post in terms of the letter
dated 17.11.2014, but has not received any response to his earlier
representation.
3. Mr. Jasmeet Singh, learned counsel for the respondents/UOI, who
appears on advance copy, states that after the amendment to the PwD
Rules in the year 2009, whereunder Rule 43(B) of the PwD Rules, 1996
was amended, though the words used in sub-Rule (2) to Rule 43(B) are
that "a person may serve as Chief Commissioner for a maximum of two
terms, subject to the upper age limit of sixty five years", the
respondents/UOI has taken a policy decision not to extend the tenure of
the Chief Commissioner beyond the first term and the said decision has
been uniformly applied since the year 2009.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents/UOI further states that the
petitioner's representation was duly considered by the Ministry and was
turned down. In support of his submission that a decision has been
taken on the petitioner's representation dated 08.07.2014, learned
counsel hands over the note file of the respondents/UOI for the court's
perusal. The said file contains a note dated 16.09.2014, prepared by the
Joint Secretary of the Department and placed before the Secretary, who
had in turn approved the proposal made and forwarded it to the
Minister-incharge and the said note was approved by the Minister-
incharge on 21.09.2014, whereafter it was decided to go ahead with the
issuance of the advertisement. Admittedly, a reply has not been formally
given by the respondents/UOI to the petitioner's letters. Learned counsel
assures the Court that the respondents/UOI shall convey its decision to
the petitioner in writing within one week from today.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission, the petition is disposed of
alongwith the pending application with directions to the respondents/UOI
to communicate its decision in writing to the petitioner within one week
from today.
(HIMA KOHLI)
DECEMBER 22, 2014 JUDGE
rkb/mk
