Delhi High Court
No 962332788 Constable/ Gd Mukesh ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 4 March, 2016
Author: Hima Kohli
$~2.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1569/2016
NO 962332788 CONSTABLE/ GD MUKESH KUMAR..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Yashish Chandra, Advocate with
petitioner in person.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC for R-1.
Mr. J.S. Lamba, Advocate with Mr. Sandeep
Balhara, Manager (Legal), NTPC for R-2 and R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
% 04.03.2016
1. This order is in continuation of the order dated 24.02.2016 on which
date, the following observations were made:-
"3. Learned counsel for the respondent-NTPC had stated that in
compliance of the aforesaid order, the respondents had
reconsidered the petitioner's representation and forwarded a
reply dated 20th November, 2015, explaining inter alia the
reasons for turning down his request for claiming pay and
allowances as per the NTPC norms. He had contended that the
petitioner had deliberately withheld the fact that he had filed the
earlier petition for the same relief, which was decided vide
order dated 22nd September, 2015. A perusal of the present
petition reveals that neither has a copy of the order dated 22nd
September, 2015 passed in the captioned writ petition, nor the
reply dated 20th November, 2015 sent by the respondent-
NTPC, been placed on record. However, as none was present on
behalf of the petitioner, in the interest of justice, the matter was
passed over.
4. On the second call, learned counsel for petitioner is present
and has been confronted with the aforesaid position. He states
that the petitioner has not apprised him of the earlier petition
and the decision taken by the respondent-NTPC and it is for the
said reason that he has not incorporated the said fact in the
present petition.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel
for the petitioner, it is deemed appropriate to direct the presence
of the petitioner on the next date of hearing."
2. Today, the petitioner is present in person and states that contrary to
what had been stated by his counsel, Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Advocate on
24.02.2016, he was very much present in Court on the said date but his
counsel had not intimated him about the observations made by us with
regard to withholding material information while filing the present petition.
He states that he had furnished all the relevant documents including those
mentioned in para 3 of the order dated 24.02.2016 to his counsel and not
being legally well versed, he had relied upon his counsel to file the said
documents and refer to them in the petition. On being asked, as to why is
Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Advocate absent today, he states that he had tried to
contact him but he has not turned up. He further states that he had sought
guidance from Mr. Yashish Chandra, Advocate, who had stated that he
would need time to examine the brief.
3. While passing over the matter, counsel for the respondents No.2 and
3/NTPC was directed to explain the import of the order dated 24.02.2016 to
the petitioner and apprise him of the background in which his presence was
required today. Further, the petitioner was called upon to call Mr. Yashish
Chandra, Advocate so that we could be adequately assisted in the matter.
4. On the second call, Mr. J.S. Lamba, learned counsel for the
respondents No.2 and 3/NTPC states that he has explained the import of the
order dated 24.02.2016 to the petitioner. We have also interacted with the
petitioner. At the end of the said interaction, the petitioner states that he may
be permitted to withdraw the present petition while reserving his right to
claim HRA from the NTPC in terms of the observations made in para III of
the additional pleas of their reply dated 20.11.2015 in response to the
petitioner's legal notice. Further, the petitioner reserves his right to seek
impleadment in W.P.(C) 5379/2014 entitled Supriya Sarkar vs. UOI and
Ors., where certain CISF personnel on deputation to NTPC have approached
the Court for seeking directions to the NTPC to pay them salary as per the
NTPC pay scales.
5. In view of the explanation offered by the petitioner and recorded
above, we do not propose to take the matter further. The present petition is
dismissed as withdrawn with liberty granted to the petitioner to represent to
the respondents No.2 and 3/NTPC with regard to disbursement of HRA and
for seeking his legal remedies for grant of salary as per NTPC pay scales,
either in the captioned writ petition or by way of filing an independent
petition, in accordance with law.
HIMA KOHLI, J
SUNIL GAUR, J
MARCH 04, 2016
rkb
