Delhi High Court
Ravinder Kumar vs Union Of India on 22 December, 2015
Author: G. S. Sistani
$~03.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11231/2015
% Judgment dated 22nd December, 2015
RAVINDER KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through : Dr.Ashwani Bhardwaj and Mr.Romit
Pathak, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Akshay Makhija, CGSC,
Ms.Sanjugeeta Moktan and Ms.Mahima
Bahl, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 20.7.2015 passed by
Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the „Tribunal‟),
whereby the Tribunal has dismissed O.A.No.2578/2015 filed by the
petitioner. By O.A.No.2578/2015 the petitioner has assailed the Order
No.A.22017/1/2009-PME, dated 17.6.2014, issued from the office of the
Prime Minister, whereby the petitioner was relieved from his duties w.e.f.
9.6.2014.
2. In this case, as per the petitioner, vide letter of appointment/Order dated
20.9.2004 issued by the respondent, the petitioner was appointed as a
Peon on co-terminus basis in the scale of pay of Rs.2550-55-2660-6-0-
3200. In the letter of appointment/Order dated 20.9.2004 it was clearly
W.P.(C) No.11231/2015 Page 1 of 5
mentioned that the appointment of the petitioner is co-terminus with the
tenure of and at the discretion of the Prime Minister. It was also informed
to the petitioner that he would work as per the pay scale of the
Government and he would retire on 31.7.2032. Further, as per the
petition, the petitioner was again re-appointed as a Peon in the Pay Band-
1 with Grade Pay of Rs.1800, vide letter of appointment/Order dated
9.6.2009 issued by the respondent. In the said Order dated 9.6.2009 it was
clearly mentioned that the appointment of the petitioner on the personal
staff of Prime Minister is co-terminus with the tenure of and at the
discretion of the Prime Minister.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance of the petitioner
is that despite an assurance having been granted to him that he would be
allowed to work upto 31.7.2032, his services stand terminated. Counsel
further submits that the petitioner has worked for ten years and, thus, he
should be granted regular employment.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival
submissions. We have also examined the letters of appointment/Orders
issued by the respondent on 20.9.2004 and 9.6.2009. Relevant portions of
the letters of appointment/Orders dated 20.9.2004 and 9.6.2009 read as
under:
"PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
No.A-22017/3/2004-PMA 20th September 2004
ORDER
Shri Ravinder Kumar a private person is appointed as Peon
on the personal staff of Prime Minister in the scale of Pay of
Rs.2550-55-2660-6-3200 with effect from the forenoon of 17
September, 2014.
The appointment of Shri Ravinder Kumar is co-terminus with
the tenure of and at the discretion of the Prime Minister."
"GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
South Block
New Delhi - 110101
No.A-22017/1/2009-PMA (Estt.)(ii) 9 June 2009
ORDER
The following private persons are appointed on the personal
staff of Prime Minister in the post and Grade Pay mentioned
against their names in Pay Band - 1, with effect from the afternoon
of 22nd May 2009, until further orders:
S.NO. Name (S/Shri) Designation Grade Pay
(Rs.)
1. Smt.Ritu Kheralia UDC 2400
2. Abbas ASif Jah UDC 2400
3. Smt.Geeta Rathi UDC 1900
4. Rahul Yadav UDC 1900
5. Mohit Vaid UDC 1900
6. Shankar Prajapati Cook 1900
7. Mahesh Kumar Yadav Peon 1800
8. Pradeep Kr. Sharma Peon 1800
9. Ravinder Kumar Peon 1800
10. Anil Peon 1800
11. Ajay Kumar Peon 1800
12. Arun Verma Peon 1800
13. Mahesh Chand Peon 1800
14. Surinder Mehto Peon 1800
15. Sachin Kumar Peon 1800
16. S.K. Chauhan Peon 1800
17. Hari Singh Peon 1800
18. Shiv Shankar Peon 1800
19. Shrimati Devi Peon 1800
20. Smt.Urmila Attendant 1800
21. Lalit Kumar Helper 1800
2. The appointment of the above persons on the personal staff
of Prime Minister is co-terminus with the tenure of and at the
discretion of the Prime Minister.
3. In terms of DoPT OM No.2/8/97-Estt. (Pay.II) dated
11.3.1998 read with DoPT No.8/8/99-CS.I dated 18.7.2000, the
above officials will continue to draw their pay in the pay band PB-1
as they were drawing as on 22 May 2009 (AN), with effect from the
forenoon of 23 May 2009."
The appointment of Shri Ravinder Kumar is co-terminus
with the tenure of and at the discretion of the Prime Minister."
5. Upon perusal of the aforestated orders, it is not in dispute that the services
of the petitioner were on co-terminus basis with the tenure of and at the
discretion of the former Prime Minister and upon the Prime Minister
demitting office the services of the petitioner has come to an end.
6. We may note that by the Order dated 9.6.2009, the term of the petitioner
was extended, however, as per Clause 2 of the letter, which is reproduced
above, his tenure was on co-terminus basis with the tenure of and at the
discretion of the Prime Minister.
7. Since the former Prime Minister has demitted the office and he has not
exercised any discretion in favour of the petitioner thereby extending the
services of the petitioner, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the
learned Tribunal. As far as the submission made by the petitioner is
concerned that the date of retirement of the petitioner was mentioned as
31.7.2032 in the Employee details, the learned Tribunal has rightly
observed that the said date of retirement is based on the date of birth of
the petitioner and it does not mean that the petitioner was allowed to serve
till 31.7.2032. Further, the petitioner cannot claim regular employment on
the ground that he has worked for ten years, as the appointment of the
petitioner was on co-terminus basis, which is evident from the aforestated
letters of appointment/orders.
8. Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
DECEMBER 22, 2015
msr
