Delhi High Court
Col. K.S. Mehta vs Union Of India & Anr. on 1 August, 2016
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 01.08.2016
+ W.P.(C) 7482/2014 and CM No.17710/2014
COL. K.S. MEHTA ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr.S.M.Dalal, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking restraint on
respondent No.2 from disturbing and dis-empanelling the petitioner's
ongoing sponsorship till he attains the age of 65 years as provided under the
Rules. The petitioner turns 65 on 29.09.2016.
2. The petitioner relies on instructions for functioning of DGR
Empanelled Ex-servicemen Security Safety & Fire Protection Management
Agencies and, particularly, the sponsorship norms stipulated therein to
contend that the sponsorship which is to be initially for a period of two years
is extendable for another period of two years.
W.P.(C) 7482/2014 Page 1
3. It is contended that the petitioner was empanelled on 13.4.2011 and
was sponsored on 31.7.2013 for a period of two years. The petitioner was
awarded a contract by Power Grid Corporation of India Limited. There is a
discrepancy in the period of contract mentioned in the letter of award dated
28.11.2013. The said clause reads as under:
"The period of contract shall be of two years duration
commencing w.e.f. 01.12.2013 to 30.11.2014."
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
period of contract was till 30.11.2015 and on account of a typographical
error in the figures "2014" has been mentioned whereas in words the period
mentioned is "two years" commencing with effect from 01.12.2013.
5. On 5.11.2014 while issuing notice, this Court had directed that the
respondent shall maintain status quo as to the ongoing sponsorship to the
petitioner. Interim orders have been continued from time to time.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was
entitled to sponsorship initially for a period of two years which period was
the extendable by a further period of two years on receipt of satisfactory
performance certificate from the principal employer. It is submitted that no
such certificate has been received by the respondents. It is further submitted
that the principal employer, i.e., Power Grid Corporation of India Limited
had intimated the respondents that the agreement was for a period of one
year and ended on 31.11.2014. It is submitted that the petitioner has been
continuing solely on account of interim orders granted by this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent relies on the Office Memorandum
W.P.(C) 7482/2014 Page 2
dated 16.1.2013 to contend that the original Office Memorandum 2006 has
been modified and the security agencies empanelled prior to 09.07.2012 are
to be governed by the old rule of 63 years of age/cumulative quota of 300
guards whichever is earlier. It is submitted that the petitioner has already
attained the age of 63 years and, accordingly, is not entitled to further
empanelment or sponsorship. He further submits that since the petitioner
has attained the maximum age as stipulated by Office Memorandum dated
16.01.2013, the petitioner has been dis-empanelled. However, the said
order has not been given effect to in view of the interim orders passed by
this Court.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Public Sector
Undertaking, i.e., Power Grid Corporation of India Limited has made a fresh
requisition in December, 2015for sponsorship of another agency which has
been done by the respondents. To which, Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that even though the term of the petitioner was extended by Power
Grid Corporation of India Limited till 31.05.2016, the new agency
sponsored by the respondents has forcefully taken charge on 01.06.2016.
9. Clause 20 (e) relates to sponsorship norms, which reads as under:
"20 (e) Sponsorship will be initially for a period of two years
further extendable by another two years, on receipt of
satisfactory performance certificate from the Principal
Employer. In case the employer makes an agreement for one
year the sponsorship will be considered for extension to the
second year unless specifically requested otherwise by the
principal employer."
W.P.(C) 7482/2014 Page 3
10. Perusal of Clause 20(e) shows that the sponsorship which is initially
for a period of two years is further extendable by another two years on the
agency producing a satisfactory performance certificate from the Principal
Employer. In the present case, there is no such certificate which is either
placed on record or supplied to the respondent.
11. The petitioner has admittedly attained the age of 63 years. As per the
Office Memorandum dated 16.01.2013, the sponsorship is to continue till
the Director attains the age of 63 years or cumulative quota of 300 guards is
achieved, whichever is earlier. Since, conditions are in the alternative and
the earlier is to prevail, the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner
has not attached the cumulative quota of 300 is of no consequence inasmuch
as the Director of petitioner has already attained the age of 63 years. The
petitioner has been continuing on account of interim orders passed by this
Court.
12. The contention of the petitioner that the contract with Power Grid
Corporation of India Limited was for a period of two years till 30.11.2015
and not till 30.11.2014 is, in the present facts, is also not relevant as both the
dates are now over and the petitioner has continued till the later of the two.
13. Further contention of the Learned counsel for the petitioner that the
fact that the principal employer has already extended the contract shows that
the principal employer is satisfied with the performance of the petitioner,
has no merit. The requirement of the clause is that certificate of satisfactory
performance should have been received from the principal employer.
admittedly, there is no such certificate available.
W.P.(C) 7482/2014 Page 4
14. In view of the fact that the petitioner has already attained the
maximum age permissible and has further not produced satisfactory
performance certificate from the principal employer, I find no merit in the
petition. The writ petition is dismissed. Interim orders are vacated.
15. Without going into the controversy of handing over of charge, it is
directed that the petitioner shall formally hand over the charge to the new
agency, if not, already done so.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
AUGUST 01, 2016
sv
W.P.(C) 7482/2014 Page 5
