Delhi High Court
Beena Anand vs Anuj Kumar Bishnoi & Ors. on 18 May, 2015
Author: Suresh Kait
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 18th May, 2015
+ CONT.CAS(C) 308/2015
BEENA ANAND ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.R.V.Sinha and Mr.R.N.
Singh, Advocates.
Versus
ANUJ KUMAR BISHNOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Rahul Sharma and
Ms.Namisha Gupta,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks directions thereby to
initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents for wilful and
deliberate disobedience of the order dated 02.08.2011 passed in W.P.(C)
No.1483/2005.
2. While disposing of the aforesaid writ petition, in para 19, the
Double Bench of this Court passed the following directions:-
"19. The writ petition stands disposed of
noting that the direction issued by the Tribunal
has been complied with by amending the
Recruitment Rules; but would commend to the
department to consider treating ad-hoc
promotion of Assistant Research Officers to the
post of Scientist „B‟ as service rendered as
Scientist „B‟ for purposes of acquiring 3 years‟
qualifying service as Scientist „B‟ to further
move up to the ladder to Scientist „C‟."
3. It is pertinent to note here that vide order dated 28.09.2010 passed
in W.P.(C) No.1483/2005, the respondents were directed to sort out the
issue and bring before the Court the agreed Recruitment Rules, which
were intended to be put in place.
4. Consequent thereto, the respondents brought the Agreed
Recruitment Rules notified with effect from 27.11.2010.
5. It is further pertinent to note that in para 14 of the order dated
02.08.2011, the Division Bench of this Court recorded that problem of
stagnation has been overcome under the new Recruitment Rules brought
in place, therefore, directed the respondents to consider treating ad hoc
promotion of Assistant Research Officers to the post of Scientist 'B' as
service rendered as Scientist 'B' for purposes of acquiring 3 years'
qualifying service as Scientist 'B' to further move up to the ladder to
Scientist 'C'.
6. It is not disputed that ad hoc promotion of the Assistant Research
Officers has been considered for the post of Scientist 'B', however, vide
order dated 28.08.2014, the respondents passed the order as under:-
" Ministry of Water Resources may kindly
refer to their proposal on pre-pages.
2. The proposal has been examined. In this
context it is intimated that as per extant
instructions in DoPT OM No.28036/1/2001-
Estt(D) dated 23.7.2011, the ad-hoc promotion
does not bestwo on the person a claim for
regular appointment and the service rendered
on ad-hoc basis in the grade concerned also
does not count for the purpose of seniority in
that grade and for eligibility for promotion to
the next higher grade. Accordingly, the period
of adhoc service as Scientist „B‟ would,
therefore, not count as eligibility service for
promotion to Scientist „C‟.
Sd/-
(Jitendra R. Gaikwad)
Under Secretary (RR)"
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that
vide order dated 02.08.2011, this Court directed the respondents to
consider ad hoc promotion of the petitioner in Scientist 'B'for the post
of Scientist 'C', however, vide order dated 28.08.2014 noted above, the
respondents have decided contrary thereto.
8. He further submits that even if the directions passed by the Courts
are contrary to the Recruitment Rules, then also the respondents are
supposed to comply with the said directions.
9. To strengthen his submissions, learned counsel for the
respondents has relied upon a case of Chandrabhaga Bai Vs. B.S. Patil,
(2004) 13 SCC 698, wherein the Apex Court held as under:-
"7. The only reason given to us for not
complying with the High Court order is that
the Rules of the State Government and the
subsequent judgment of this Court in the case
of State of M.P. v. Dekinanda Maheshwari
(2003) 3 SCC 183 provide that pension is
payable only from the date of the order and not
from the date of the application.
8. In our view, it is not open to the
respondent to act contrary to a specific
direction of a court. At the highest, the
respondent can apply for a variation or a
clarification of the order. If the clarification/
variation is refused, then the only remedy
would be to file an appeal. If ultimately the
Court decided against the respondent, the
respondent is bound to comply with the order
of this Court."
10. It is not in dispute that the Recruitment Rules 2010 had been
approved by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1483/2005
and the respondents were directed to consider ad hoc period of three
years of the Assistant Research Officers as qualifying service for
purposes of promotion to the post of Scientist 'B'.
11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, in my
considered opinion, there was no direction that further ad hoc service as
Scientist 'B' would be treated qualifying service for promotion to the
post of Scientist 'C'. Therefore, case of Chandrabhaga Bai (supra) is
not applicable to the present case.
12. In view of the above noted facts, I am not inclined to pass further
orders in this petition against the respondents.
13. The petition is accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is
granted to the petitioner, if aggrieved with the order dated 28.08.2014
passed by the respondents, to approach the appropriate Forum.
SURESH KAIT
(JUDGE)
MAY 18, 2015
sb
