Delhi High Court
Sanjay Kumar & Ors. vs Rites Ltd. & Anr. on 25 July, 2016
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment dated: 25th July, 2016
+ W.P.(C) 9599/2015
SANJAY KUMAR & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms.Jyoti singh, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Sameer Sharma and Mr.Manish
Goyal, Advocates
versus
RITES LTD. & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.R.K.Saini and Ms.Minal Sehgal,
Advocates with Mr. P.K.Arora,
(AGM(P))
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
CM No.26215/2016 (for filing additional document)
This is an application filed by the petitioners to place an additional
document on record which could not be filed due to inadvertence.
Notice. Mr.R.K.Saini, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the
respondents.
Heard.
The application is allowed.
W.P.(C) 9599/2015
1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal dated 30th March, 2015 by which the OA filed by
the petitioners was rejected.
2. Some facts which are required to be noticed for the disposal of this
petition are that the petitioners were working as Economists and Statistician
on contract basis with the respondents since the year 2007. Their services
continued till the process of their regularisation commenced when a test was
held by the respondents on 28th June, 2014. Thereafter the petitioners were
called for an interview. It would also be relevant to note that the respondents
had considered their case for regularisation favourably and, in fact, a copy of
the file note, placed on record, would show that the Director had noted on
17th September, 2014 as under:
"regularisation orders for other three at serial Nos. 2, 3
and 4 on np-18 may be issued
Signed
17.9.2014
AGM(P)/Rectt"
3. However, further process for regularization was derailed when the
CMD made the following note on 14th October, 2015:-
"I am concerned with the present business flow in this unit.
Regularisation be put on hold.
DP may please re-examine the sustainability of these posts
as regular positions."
4. Apprehending that their contract would not be extended, the
petitioners approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. OA
No.3792/2014 was filed. By an order dated 3rd November, 2014, interim
protection was granted to the petitioners and they continued to work till the
OA was finally decided. In the order dated 3rd November, 2014 while
granting stay, it was noticed as under:
"intention of the CMD was only not to regularise the
service of the applicants immediately but he never ordered
cancellation of their selection as done by the respondents."
5. The trouble of the petitioners actually started when based on the
interim order an affidavit was filed by the respondents before the Central
Administrative Tribunal that it would not be viable for the respondents to
regularise the petitioners. Based on the affidavit, the Tribunal rejected the
OA.
6. After some hearing in the matter, Mr.R.K.Saini, learned counsel for
the respondents submits that the prayer made by the present petitioners in the
writ petition cannot be considered as the order passed by the respondents for
not regularising the petitioners was not challenged before the Tribunal.
Ms.Jyoti Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that in
fact an application seeking amendment to the OA was filed on 23rd
December, 2015 and the prayer made therein was allowed. Mr.R.K.Saini,
learned counsel for the respondents submits that even after the amendment
no prayer for quashing of the final order was made and thus in the absence of
the petitioners having laid challenge to their terms not being extended and
regularisation being rejected, no relief can be granted to the petitioners in
these proceeding to adjudicate upon the matter.
7. At this stage, learned senior counsel for the petitioners upon
instructions from the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this petition
with leave to challenge the order by which the regularisation has been
declined on the ground that the posts have been abolished. It is agreed that
petitioners would be at liberty to raise all grounds as available to the
petitioners including grounds which have been raised in this writ petition.
Mr.R.K.Saini, learned counsel for the respondents, also very fairly states that
should the petitioners approach the Central Administrative Tribunal within
four weeks, he would not raise the plea of limitation.
8. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI
(JUDGE)
I.S. MEHTA
(JUDGE)
JULY 25, 2016/sv
