Sahkarmi Welfare Association Of ... vs Union Of India & Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 1918 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          W.P.(C) No. 2117/2015 & CM No. 3816/2015

%                                                          4th March, 2015

SAHKARMI WELFARE ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED EMPLOYEES
OF NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR COOPERATIVE TRAINING

                                                           ..... Petitioner

                           Through:     Ms. Prabhasahay Kaur, Adv.


                           Versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                      ..... Respondents

                           Through:     Mr. Rajesh Gogna, Advocate for
                                        respondent no.1.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.            After arguments, this petition is not pressed with liberty to the

individually affected persons to file writ petitions as individuals or as a

group provided there are common questions of facts and law which arise qua

the common petitioners.




W.P.(C) No. 2117/2015                                                          Page 1 of 4
 2.            Petition is allowed to be withdrawn with aforesaid liberty.




                                               VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

MARCH 04, 2015

Ne



3.            After the above order was passed at around 11 AM, the matter

was mentioned at the stroke of lunch, and the counsel for the petitioner

states that petitioner has instructed her not to withdraw the petition. This is

indeed a strange position, however therefore, I am passing the following

detailed order.


4.            In this writ petition, the petitioner is a body/entity i.e a legal

person and not a natural person. By the writ petition, benefit is sought for

the members of the petitioner with respect to the claim of D.A. and also

interest.


5.            In my opinion, the writ petition is not maintainable by a body

and which body does not get any benefits but the benefits are prayed for and

granted only to individual persons. Facts

and causes of action of each

individual person have to be pleaded separately in a separate petition unless

a petition can be filed by a group of individual persons on there existing

common questions both of law and facts. It is settled law that in service

matters, a PIL is not permissible i.e a service matter has to be filed by a

person who has locus standi and seeks reliefs. This petition effectively is

barred on the same principle because petitioner as a body does not get any

benefits but the benefits are sought for with respect to individuals who can

surely come before this Court. Just because many petitioners find it

convenient to file a case through a body does not mean that this Court

should entertain such a petition inasmuch as rights are with respect to an

individual and it is not the case that such an individual on account of

suffering from a disability could not approach this Court and therefore

effectively the PIL on his behalf is sought to be filed.

6. In service matters where vires of a statutory provision are

challenged, may be a body can file a petition, but, where individuals claim

individual monetary benefits as per the facts of such individuals, and facts of

each individual are not necessarily identical for raising common questions of

law and facts, then a body/legal entity ought not to be allowed to file a case

and cases must be filed by the individuals as per their own locus.

7. In view of the above, the petitioner lacks locus standi, and

therefore the petition is not maintainable and is dismissed.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

MARCH 04, 2015

Ne