S.B.Singh & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 6872 Del

$~40
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+        W.P.(C).8727/2015
     %                                      Judgment dated 11th September, 2015
         S.B.SINGH & ORS.                                  ..... Petitioners
                       Through :         Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, Mr. T.V.S.
                                         Raghavendra Sreyas and Ms. Gayatri
                                         Gulati Sreyas, Advocates
                           versus
         UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                   ..... Respondents

Through : Mr. Akshay Makhija,CGSC with Ms. Mahima Bahl, Mr.Siddharth Thakur, Advocates for respondents no.1, 2, 4 and

Mr. Kaziny Raza with Mr. Samir Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent no.3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)

CM APPL Nos.19251/2015 & 19252/2015

1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

2. Applications stands disposed of.

W.P.(C).8727/2015

3. The prayer of the petitioners for interim relief has been declined by the

Central Administrative Tribunal which has led to the filing of the present

writ petition. As per the order dated 03.09.2015, the reason for not

entertaining the application for interim relief is on account of pendency of a

Contempt Petition No.243/2013 before the High Court where pursuant to

the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court, the modalities of

redeployment of officers repatriated to Department of Telecommunications

(DoT) have been filed by the respondents. The stand of the respondents

before the Tribunal was that the matter is listed before the High Court on

18.11.2015 and an affidavit has been filed by the respondents and the

petitioners have sought time to react to the same. Counsel for the

petitioners, however, submits that the petitioners were neither parties to the

OA nor parties in the writ petition and neither they are being represented in

the Contempt Petition and in case their rights are not protected, they would

not be similarly placed as the other petitioners and also serious prejudice

would be caused to their rights. Counsel for the respondent does not dispute

that petitioners were neither party to the OA before the Tribunal nor before

the Single Judge in the contempt proceedings.

4. Heard.

5. For the above reasons, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ

petition with the request to the Tribunal to consider the stay application

filed by the petitioners in accordance with law.

6. List before the Tribunal on 22.09.2015.

7. The writ petition stands disposed of.

CM.APPL 19250/2015(stay)

8. Since the present writ petition has been disposed of, the application also

disposed of.

G.S.SISTANI, J

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J SEPTEMBER 11, 2015 pst