Delhi High Court
Mangala Khattar And Ors vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 29 October, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2755/2012 & CM No.2548/2014
W.P.(C) 4055/2013 & CM Nos.9557 & 13329/2013
Decided on : 29.10.2014
IN THE MATTERS OF
WP(C) No.2755/2012
MANGALA KHATTAR AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Zeyaul Haque, Adv.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Anjum Javed and Mr. Devendra
Kumar, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Siddharth Dias, Adv. for R-2/
FPAI.
Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC for R-3.
AND
W.P.(C) 4055/2013
DR. J.B. BABBAR & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Zeyaul Haque, Adv.
versus
FAMILY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF INDIA NEW DELHI & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through Mr. Siddharth Dias, Adv. for R-1/
FPAI.
Mr. Rajiv Nanda, ASC for R-2.
Mr. Apar Gupta, Adv. for UOI.
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)
1. This common judgment shall dispose of the petitions filed by the
petitioners as the issues raised in these writ petitions are common.
For the sake of convenience, facts of W.P.(C) 4055/2013 are taken
note of.
2. The present petition has been filed by 10 petitioners who are
employees of the respondent No.1/FPAI praying inter alia for
quashing/setting aside communications dated 12.6.2013 and
17.6.2013 issued by the respondent No.1, terminating their services.
The petitioners also seek directions to the respondent No.1 to absorb
them in any of its units spread across Delhi. In the alternative, the
petitioners seek directions to the respondent No.1/FPAI to extend the
Voluntary Retirement Scheme to them, as per its practice.
3. In the order dated 3rd July, 2013, it was observed that since it
could not be disputed on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners
had put in work over the last few months, and they were not paid their
salaries, the respondents were directed that the petitioners who have
worked, should be paid their arrears of salary before the next date of
hearing, i.e., before 14th August, 2013.
4. On 14th August, 2013, the Court was informed that out of 10
petitioners, four of them, namely petitioners No.5, 7, 8 and 9 have
been accommodated by the respondent No.1/FPAI by giving them
fresh jobs. It was observed in the order that such of the remaining
petitioners who had not submitted their bio-datas, should submit the
same to the respondent No.1/FPAI within two weeks whereafter the
said respondent will comply with the directions issued on 3 rd July,
2013. Further, respondent No.2/GNCTD was directed to release the
necessary funds to the respondent No.1 so that the salaries of the
petitioners could be released for the period for which they had worked
with the respondent No.1/FPAI.
5. Thereafter, respondent No.2/Govt. of NCT of Delhi had filed an
interim application, registered as CM 13329/2013, for
clarification/modification of the orders dated 3rd July, 2013 and 14th
August, 2013 and explained therein that the Govt. of NCT of Delhi only
releases the funds received in the form of Grant-In-Aid from the
respondent No.3/Govt.of India and as the same had not been
received, no liability could be fastened on it for release of funds to the
respondent No.1/FPAI, for payment of salaries to the petitioners. Vide
order dated 23rd September, 2013, it was directed that for the time
being, the salary would be paid to the petitioners, but the respondent
No.2/GNCTD need not release any further funds for the salaries that
pertain to the year 2012-13. Respondent No.2 was also directed to
file a report of the Grant-In-Aid Committee and the correspondence
exchanged with the respondent No.1/FPAI on this aspect.
6. On the next date of hearing, i.e., on 30th October, 2013, it was
observed that the earlier connected writ petitions were disposed of
vide order dated 12th April, 2013 wherein it was held that similarly
placed petitioners could not claim regularization in view of the
Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi and Ors. reported as
(2006) 4 SCC 1. However, as the petitioners claimed that they
should be accommodated in other Schemes of the respondent
No.1/FPAI, and pursuant thereto, some of the petitioners were
accommodated in other Schemes being operated by the respondent
No.1, the first relief prayed for in the present petition was disposed of
on the aforesaid date with directions issued to the respondent
No.1/FPAI to grant necessary re-employment to the remaining
petitioners on their existing posts, in accordance with law.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that in view of the
directions issued on 30.10.2013, the alternate prayer made by the
petitioners for extension of VRS to them, is not pressed.
8. Coming to the claim of the petitioners for release of the arrears
of their salaries for the periods for which they had worked with the
respondent No.1, it was noted in the order dated 30 th October, 2013
that there appeared a dispute between the respondent No.1/FPAI on
the one hand and the respondent No.2/Govt. of NCT and respondent
No.3/Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on the other hand with
regard to transfer of funds to the respondent No.1 under the Grant-In-
Aid for the project known as "Composite Pattern Scheme" and the said
issue could only be considered on completion of pleadings of two
pending interlocutory applications filed by the respondent No.2/GNCTD
(CM Nos.13329-30/2013) and on completion of pleadings in respect of
the additional affidavit that was filed by the respondent No.2.
9. On 22.01.2014, it was clearly indicated to the learned counsel
for the petitioners that the scope of the present petitions was limited
and the relief being sought by the petitioners for release of arrears of
salary did not find mention therein and therefore necessary steps
would have to be taken to expand the scope of the said petitions. It
may be noted that despite the said observation, the petitioners have
not taken any steps to amend the writ petitions.
10. On 16th April, 2014, the previous orders passed in the matters
were summarized and while dealing with C.M. 13329/2013, filed by
the respondent No.2/GNCTD, it was observed that it would be
necessary for the petitioners to file details of the salaries due to them
and the period for which the said salaries were due, with copies to the
other side. Mr. Haque, learned counsel for the petitioners states that
he had made compliances of the said order and furnished relevant
details to the respondents, but he concedes that he has not taken
steps to amend the writ petitions in terms of the earlier order.
11. Counsel for respondent No.1/FPAI states that the amounts
indicated by the petitioners as arrears of salaries are no doubt
outstanding, but he expresses the inability of the respondent No.1 to
release the said amounts on account of failure on the part of the
respondent No.2/Govt. of NCT and the respondent No.3/Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare to release the Grant-In-Aid in its favour.
12. There is no dispute about the fact that the salaries that were
payable to the petitioners up to the year 2011-12, stand paid. The
dispute has narrowed down to the claim of the salaries payable to the
petitioners for the period with effect from the year 2012-13. The
stand of learned counsel for the respondent No.2/GNCTD is that the
respondent No.1/NGO has not performed satisfactorily in implementing
the Composite Pattern Scheme and therefore the Grant-In-Aid
Committee constituted by the GNCTD has not recommended release of
payments to the said respondent. The said submission is however
denied by learned counsel for the respondent No.1/FPAI.
13. Pertinently, neither the petitioners herein, nor the respondent
No.1 have raised the aforesaid dispute before any forum for
adjudication. Further, despite an opportunity afforded to them, the
petitioners have failed to amend the present petitions and ask for the
said relief. Learned counsel for the petitioners concedes that as on
date, nothing further survives in the present petitions.
14. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is deemed appropriate to
dispose of the present petitions with liberty granted to the respondent
No.1/FPAI to seek its legal remedies against the respondents No.2 and
3 for release of the Grant-In-Aid under the Composite Pattern Scheme
for the year 2012-13. This shall however not preclude the petitioners
from invoking their independent remedies against the respondents for
release of the arrears of salaries payable to them for the periods for
which they have worked for the respondent No.1/FPAI, in accordance
with law.
15. W.P.(C) 2755/2012 and W.P.(C) 4055/2013 are disposed of
along with the pending applications, while leaving the parties to bear
their own costs.
(HIMA KOHLI)
OCTOBER 29, 2014 JUDGE
km/mk
