Delhi High Court
Dharam Veer vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors on 27 July, 2016
$~02.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6164/2016
% Judgment dated 27 th July, 2016
DHARAM VEER ..... Petitioner
Through : Ms.Rani Chhabra and Ms.Priyanka
Sony, Advs.
versus
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.R.V. Sinha, Mr.R.N. Singh and
Mr.A.S. Singh, Advs. for respondents.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
1. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226
of the Constitution of India against the order dated 31.5.2016 passed by
Central Administrative Tribunal (in short „the Tribunal‟), in
O.A.No.1837/2015 whereby the Tribunal dismissed the OA filed by the
petitioner on the ground of delay in approaching the Tribunal.
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the petition, are that the petitioner
was initially engaged by the respondents as a casual labourer in the
Office of Delhi Transport Office (DTO), Paharganj, New Delhi, w.e.f.
October, 1995. The petitioner continued to work as a casual labourer
without any break in service upto October, 2001. The petitioner claims
that the Telegraph Unit (Centre), Sub-Divisional Engineer, Central
Telegraph Office, which was the Head Office of DTOs, used to
maintain a common seniority list of part-time casual labourer working
in all the DTOs.
3. Further as per the petition, the DTO Office at Paharganj, where the
petitioner was working, was closed in the year 2001 and he was, thus,
declared as surplus w.e.f. October, 2001. It is also claimed that other
labourers, employed in separate DTOs which were also closed down,
were re-employed in other offices, however, the petitioner was denied
re-employment. The petitioner thereafter made a representation to
respondents no.3 and 4 seeking re-employment and also bringing to
their notice the instances of Mr.Naresh Kumar and Ms.Gudi, who had
been given re-employment. Since the request of the petitioner was not
acceded to despite the petitioner informing the respondent and giving
instances of similarly situated persons such as Mr.Naresh Kumar and
Ms.Gudi, he filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court, being
W.P.(C)No.11774/2004. The said writ petition was allowed vide order
dated 26.10.2005, operative portion of which reads as under:
"11. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the respondents have
acted in a discriminatory manner while denying the petitioner
re-engagement and the benefit of the treatment as full-time
worker pursuant to the policies.
12. For the reasons indicated above, the respondents are
directed to offer a suitable post to the petitioner within a period
of three months from today and grant the same treatment as was
given to Sh. Naresh Kumar, Smt. Guddi whose instances having
discussed above.
13. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above."
4. Pursuant to the order passed on 26.10.2005, the petitioner was re-
employed initially as a part-time casual labourer and thereafter a full-
time casual labourer but he was not regularised.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that since he was not regularised, he made
several representations to the respondents to comply with the directions
contained in the order dated 26.10.2015 passed in
W.P.(C)No.11774/2004. Vide communication dated 13.6.2013, the
petitioner was informed that it would not be possible to regularise him
in view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of
Secretary, State of karnataka v. Uma Devi, reported at 2006 (4) SCC
1. The petitioner thereafter filed a contempt petition, being
Cont.Cas(C)No.740/2013, in the High Court of Delhi. The Delhi High
Court vide order dated 14.10.2014 dismissed the contempt petition on
the ground that the contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner
after a period of six years. The High Court, however, noticed that the
communication dated 13.6.2013 is a fresh cause of action, which has
accrued in favour of the petitioner, and the same cannot be said to be
contempt. The petitioner thereafter filed OA No.1837/2015 before the
Tribunal, which was dismissed on 31.5.2016. Operative portion of the
order dated 31.5.2016 reads as under:
"11. However, having considered the matter in Contempt
Petition preferred by the applicant before the Hon'ble High
Court and ruled as above, the Hon'ble High Court was clearly of
the opinion that whatsoever might have been the merits of the
case, the delay of seven years could not have been condoned.
Once the Hon'ble High Court has taken a position, it is not for
the Tribunal to rule otherwise as it amounts to modification of
the order of the High Court for which this Tribunal is not
competent."
6. Ms.Chhabra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the
Tribunal has failed to take into consideration that the contempt petition
was dismissed on account of limitation and it is not that the High Court
has held that the claim of the petitioner had became stale. Counsel
further submits that the cause of action accrued in favour of the
petitioner on 13.6.2013. Thereafter the petitioner filed contempt
petition. After the contempt petition was dismissed the petitioner
approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal has not taken the above
factors into consideration.
7. Mr.Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents, enters appearance on an
advance copy and submits that the present petition is not maintainable
as there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
Counsel further submits that the cause of action accrued in favour of
the petitioner in the month of March, 2007, and not in the year 2013, as
claimed by the petitioner.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have also carefully
examined the order dated 26.10.2015 passed in
W.P.(C)No.11774/2004, the order dated 14.10.2014 passed in
Cont.Cas(C)No.740/2013, and the impugned order dated 31.5.2016
passed by the Tribunal. We are of the view that the learned Tribunal
has completely misread the order dated 14.10.2014 passed in
Cont.Cas(C)No.740/2013. The learned Single Judge dismissed the
contempt petition while relying on Section 20 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, as per which the period of limitation prescribed is one year.
Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act reads as under:
"20. Limitation for actions for contempt.- No court shall
initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or
otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date
on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed."
9. In view of Section 20, the contempt petition was not entertained being
barred by limitation. We may also notice that it is the same Single
Judge who opined that a fresh cause of action accrued in favour of the
petitioner. The Single Judge observed that if at all it gives rise to any
cause of action in favour of the petitioner against his non-
regularisation, it is only a fresh cause of action which can be agitated
by him in an independent writ petition. Thus, for the Tribunal to say
that since the High Court was of the opinion that there was delay, the
OA could not be entertained by the Tribunal.
10. Accordingly, we remand the matter back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal
shall take an independent view as to whether there was delay in filing
the OA or not; when the cause of action accrued; whether the petitioner
had spent time in other proceedings; and whether the time spent is to be
deducted or not and subject to objections which are raised by the
respondents. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion
on the merits of the matter.
11. Resultantly, present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated
31.5.2016 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal
for fresh hearing. The Tribunal will decide the matter in accordance
with law. Pleas of both the parties are kept open.
12. Writ petition stands disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J
I.S. MEHTA, J
JULY 27, 2016
msr
