Pankaj Kumar Pathak vs Union Of India & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 2491 Del

$~26
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                    W.P.(C) 2756/2016

                                           Date of decision: 30th March, 2016

         PANKAJ KUMAR PATHAK                        ..... Petitioner
                     Through    Mr. V.K. Garg, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
                     Sagar Saxena, Ms. Noopur Dubey and Ms.
                     Himanshi Saini, Advocates.
                              versus
         UNION OF INDIA & ORS                         ..... Respondent
                       Through    Mr. Umang Mittal and Mr. Vikas
                       Chopra, Advocates for R-1 & 2.
             CORAM:
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

         SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)

C.M.No.11592/2016

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 2756/2016

We have heard Mr. Vinay Kumar Garg, Sr. Advocate on behalf

of the petitioner, who submits that the issue of eligibility prescribed by

the Recruitment Rules for promotion to the post of Surveyor of Works

[re-designated as Executive Engineer (QS&C)] was sub judice in

different forums since 1996. The issue was finally decided by the

Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5944/2015, titled Akhilesh Shukla

& Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. vide judgment dated 4th August,

2015. In view of the said judgment, the petitioner was eligible and

had been wrongly denied promotion at the right time. He submits that

as the matter was sub judice and pending litigation, the final decision

of the Supreme Court has to be enforced and applied to the entire class

of employees, who were eligible and were entitled to be promoted as

per the Recruitment Rules, to the post of Executive Engineer (QS&C)

and then to the post of Executive Engineer (QS&C) (NFSG). He

relies upon recent decision of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar

Pradesh and Others vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Others, (2015)

1 SCC 347.

2. We note that the Tribunal in the impugned order dated 4 th

March, 2016, has directed that to avoid further litigation, the OA itself

should be heard and decided at the earliest. The Tribunal has also

directed that promotion, if any, of the private respondents, to the post

of Superintending Engineer would remain subject to the outcome of

the OA No.240/2016.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that

hearing in OA No.240/2016 could not take place on 15 th March, 2016

and now the said OA is fixed on 26th April, 2016. It is submitted that

promotions to the post of Superintending Engineer (QS&C) are being

made.

4. Litigation on the question of interpretation of Recruitment Rules

has remained pending for nearly 19 years. As per the petitioner this

question is fully covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in

Akhilesh Shukla & Ors (supra). Our attention is also drawn to the

order dated 29th March, 2016, passed by the Director General, Military

Engineering Service, whereby promotions have been made to the post

of Superintending Engineer (QS&C), subject to the outcome of the

O.A. The petitioner is right that the issue should be resolved and

decided at the earliest. We notice that the tribunal is also conscious

and aware of this urgency and the O.A. is listed for final hearing and

disposal. In these circumstances we are not inclined to issue notice as

the impugned order decides the application for stay. We hope and trust

that the parties would not seek adjournment and the matter would be

heard and disposed of by the Tribunal by 31 st May, 2016. Learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the official respondents states that they

will not seek adjournment and will argue the matter on the next date

of hearing before the Tribunal.

5. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

NAJMI WAZIRI, J.

MARCH 30, 2016

NA