Delhi High Court
Narender Kumar vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 18 November, 2014
$~SB-1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Review Petition No.680/2012 in W.P.(C) 13061/2009
NARENDER KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. K. Venkataraman, Advocate
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Gagan Deep, S.R.E.O. (Litigation),
GNCTD
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 18.11.2014
1. Though no lawyer is present on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Gagan
Deep, S.R.E.O. is present in person.
2. Mr. Venkataraman who appears for the petitioners says that the
review petition deserves to be dismissed. For this purpose, he has made the
following submissions :-
2.1 That the writ petitioner was first registered with the Employment
Exchange in 1988. This court by order dated 26.07.2012 has returned a
finding that the applicants/ respondents were found remiss in discharging
their duties between 1988 and 1999 and on two occasions in September
2008. Therefore, cost of Rs.50,000/- was imposed on the applicants/
respondents. The applicants/respondents themselves in paragraph 37 of the
counter affidavit filed have made a statement supported by an affidavit to
the effect that prior to year 2004 the writ petitioner's name may have been
W.P.(C) 13061/2009 page 1 of 3
sponsored number of times, but the record for the period prior to 2004, has
already been weeded out.
2.2 It is thus stated that either the applicants/respondents, had record prior
to 2004 available or that submission made that the record was weeded out,
was false. In other words, Mr Venkatraman says that no way could the
applicants/respondents have made an averment to the effect that the writ
petitioner's name may have been sponsored from time to time unless the
affiant had either personal knowledge or had examined the record.
2.3 The other contention made is that, the documents filed by the
applicants/respondents, which are marked as Annexure 10 clearly indicate
that records which were to be weeded out prior to 01.01.2006, would have to
be stored by way of digital data i.e., in the computer.
2.4 Furthermore, according to Mr. Venkatraman as per the extract of the
manual relating to "maintenance of record at Employment Exchange", there
are, various categories set out, giving time frames, within which documents
falling under different categories can be weeded out. It is Mr
Venkatraman's submission that the writ petitioner's record would fall under
category X-63, which relates to "running record of registration" qua which
the storage period stipulated therein is twenty (20) years. Therefore, the writ
petitioner's record could not have been weeded out within five (5) years as
contended by the applicants/ respondents.
2.5 For the aforesaid reasons, Mr. Venkataman says that there is no merit
in the review petition.
3. I have examined the contentions made in the review petition. Based
on the documents relied upon by the applicants/ respondents, one cannot
W.P.(C) 13061/2009 page 2 of 3
reach a conclusion that the records as contended by them had to be retained
only for 5 years. The document, Annexure 10, seems to indicate that record
weeded out prior to 01.01.2006, had to be stored digitally. The documents
pertaining to the writ petitioner appear to fall under category 'X-63', which
had storage period of twenty (20) years. In any case the documents filed do
not, in the very least, throw any light on this aspect, that is, the category in
which the writ petitioner's case would fall. The benefit of doubt, if any, has
to go to the petitioner, who is arraigned against the wherewithal of a mighty
State. There is, in my view, no error apparent on the face of the record.
3.1 In these circumstances, I find no merit in the review petition. The
same is accordingly dismissed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
4. At this stage, Ms. Anjana Gosain, the learned counsel for the
respondents has entered appearance. She has been apprised of the order
passed today.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
NOVEMBER 18, 2014
Yg
W.P.(C) 13061/2009 page 3 of 3
