Delhi High Court
Mohit Mahajan vs Union Of India & Ors on 24 May, 2016
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4700/2016 & CM No.19624/2016
MOHIT MAHAJAN ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Pradeep Gupta, Ms. Mansi Gupta
and Mr. Pranav Gupta, Advocates
with petitioner in person.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Vijay Joshi with Mr. Arun Kumar,
Advocates for R-1 to 3.
Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Rahul Narayan and Mr. S. Goel, Advocates
for R-4/FITT with Mr. S.N. Tiwari, AR (Legal).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 24.05.2016
1. Half way through the arguments being addressed by Mr.Pradeep
Gupta, Advocate, the petitioner, who is present in Court, states that he may
be permitted to discharge his counsel and address arguments himself.
Leave, as prayed for, is granted. Learned counsel is discharged.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia
for issuing a writ of prohibition, restraining the respondent No.4/FITT from
terminating his services during the pendency of his complaint filed before
the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (hereinafter
referred to as `the Chief Commissioner') and in the event the verdict is
against him, for restraining the said respondent from terminating his services
for a period of two weeks to enable him to approach the High Court for
suitable relief.
3. As per the documents placed on record, this is the third round of
litigation initiated by the petitioner. Initially, the petitioner had filed
WP(C)No.749/2014, stating inter alia that he had approached the Court of
the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities with a grievance
against the respondent No.4/FITT, Delhi, with regard to a claim under
Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection
of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (in short 'the Act') and for
seeking an interim order to the effect that the respondents be restrained from
dispensing his service during the pendency of the said petition.
4. A consent order dated 10.3.2014 was passed in the captioned petition,
wherein it was recorded that the matter should be remanded to the
Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities for deciding the petition and in
the meantime, the interim order dated 31.1.2014, restraining the respondent
No.4 from dispensing with the services of the petitioner, was agreed to be
continued for a period of two weeks in the event the petitioner suffers an
adverse order.
5. Thereafter, vide order dated 2.12.2014, the petitioner's complaint was
disposed of by the Chief Commissioner with an observation that the
respondent No.4 did not fall under Section 2(k) of the Act as it is not an
establishment and further, even if it is presumed that the respondent No.3 is
an establishment defined under the aforesaid provision, the petitioner did not
have the protection of Section 47 of the Act as he was discharging his
services purely on a contractual basis, in terms of the contract of service
duly executed by him.
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner had filed WP(C)
No.8947/2014, which was disposed of by a consent order dated 27.5.2015,
wherein it was recorded that both the parties had stated that they had
amicably arrived at a compromise, whereunder a fresh contract was entered
into between the petitioner and the respondent No.4.
7. The Court is informed that under the aforesaid Contract, the petitioner
was engaged by the respondent No.4 for a period of one year, which was
renewable at the option of the respondent No.4, depending on his
performance, conduct and integrity. It is an admitted position that the period
of one year shall expire on 26.5.2016, i.e., day after tomorrow.
8. After a period of eight months, the petitioner has filed a fresh
complaint against the respondent No.4 with the Chief Commissioner for
Persons with Disabilities praying inter alia for permission to continue
working on his originally appointed post, i.e., Technology Transfer and IPR
with a reasonable accommodation and for providing a conducive
environment to differently abled persons. Lastly, the petitioner has sought
directions that his services be renewed and continued.
9. The Court is informed that the date earlier fixed in respect of the
petitioner's complaint before the Chief Commissioner was 3.6.2016.
However, the same has now been advanced to 25.5.2016, i.e, tomorrow.
10. In the given facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to
restrain the respondent No.4/FITT from terminating the petitioner's services
as the contract executed between the parties itself states that the same is
valid for a period of one year and renewal thereof is optional at the
discretion of the respondent No.4.
11. At this stage, the petitioner submits that it may be clarified that if he is
aggrieved by the order that may be passed by the Chief Commissioner, he
would be entitled to seek his remedies against the same.
12. The aforesaid right is inherent in the petitioner. If the petitioner is
aggrieved by the order that may be passed by the Chief Commissioner, he
shall be entitled to seek his remedies, as may be available to him in law.
13. The writ petition is disposed of, along with the pending application.
HIMA KOHLI, J
MAY 24, 2016
sk/rkb
