Delhi High Court
Satpal vs Union Of India And Ors. on 30 August, 2016
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment dated: 30th August, 2016
+ W.P.(C) 7641/2016
SATPAL ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Arun Kumar Bhardwaj, CGSC
with Mr.Abhishek Khanna,
Mr.Mimansk Bhardwaj, Advocates
for R1 to 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
CM No. 31482/2016 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 7641/2016
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 4 th December,
2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short the 'Tribunal'),
by which OA filed by the petitioner stands dismissed on the ground of delay
and laches.
2. The facts of the case, very briefly, are that the petitioner was working
as a 'Nursing Attendant' in Safdarjung Hospital. On account of
unauthorized leave of 1229 days, a charge sheet was issued on 22.07.2002.
An inquiry was conducted and vide report dated 18.06.2007, the Inquiry
Officer held the charges to have been proved. Based upon the findings of
the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of
compulsory retirement by its order dated 24.12.2007. The petitioner,
thereafter, filed an appeal and the same was dismissed on 12.06.2008. The
petitioner then preferred a revision petition which was dismissed on
06.02.2009. A review petition was filed which was also dismissed and the
order was communicated to the petitioner through communication dated
04.11.2010. Subsequently, another review petition was filed by the
petitioner which was also dismissed on 08.02.2011 and communicated by a
letter dated 18.04.2011. The petitioner alleges that the order on the second
review was received by him only on 03.04.2013 pursuant to an RTI
application filed by him.
3. Aggrieved, the petitioner finally approached the Tribunal by filing of
the OA No. 4415/2013 on 16.12.2013. The Tribunal observing that there is
no permission for filing a second review petition and consequently the
period of limitation can be inferred from the intimation of dismissal of first
review petition, dismissed the OA as being barred by delay of more than 2
years. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. After some hearing in the matter, Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that he does not press the matter on merits but prays that a
direction be issued to the respondents to release the consequential benefits
due to him post the order of compulsory retirement as the same have not
been released to him.
5. Mr. Bhardwaj, learned Standing Counsel for UOI, who enters
appearance on advance copy, submits that he is not aware as to whether the
consequential benefits have been released to the petitioner or not; but
whatever are the consequences of the order, the petitioner should have been
given the necessary benefits in accordance with law.
6. Heard. In view of the stand taken by counsel for the petitioner, the
writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. Since none of the counsels are sure
as to whether the consequential benefits have been released to the petitioner
or not, we direct the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner and in
case, the consequential benefits have not been released, the same shall be
released to him expeditiously in accordance with law.
7. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
G.S.SISTANI
(JUDGE)
I.S.MEHTA
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 30, 2016
j
