Delhi High Court
Department Of ... vs Satya Prakash & Ors. on 30 May, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 02.02.2016
Pronounced on: 30.05. 2016
+ WP(C) 2360/2015
DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS
..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Monika Arora, Adv.
Versus
SATYA PRAKASH & ORS.
.... Respondents
Through: Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
WP(C) 2360/2015 CM Nos.4241-42/2015
1. The Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, impugns the order
dated 17th December, 2013 passed by the Principal Bench of Central
Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi (the Tribunal) in OA No.1872/2012,
whereby Ministry of Defence has been directed to grant lien to the original
applicants, on the post of Upper Division Clerks (UDC), which they were
holding, prior to their joining the new assignment with the petitioner.
2. The original applicants, nine in number, are respondents before us and
are referred to as the respondents or as respondent Nos. 1 to 9. The Ministry
of Defence, who were also respondents in the original application, have not
WP(C) 2360 of 2015 Page 1 of 19
filed the present writ petition and we perceive that they have accepted the
said decision. The Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Department of
Personnel and Training have been impleaded as proforma respondents.
3. The Department of Telecommunications, by way of circular dated 12th
August, 2009, had invited applications for filling up vacant Group -C posts
of Lower Division Clerk, Junior Accountant and Senior Accountant.
Respondent Nos.1 to 9, who were working in the Ministry of Defence as
UDC, had applied and were appointed as Junior Accountants. The sole
question in this petition is whether this appointment of the nine respondents
as Junior Accountant statedly on permanent absorption basis in the Ministry
of Telecommunications, had resulted in loss of their lien in the post of UDC.
The Department of Telecommunications is of the view that respondents No.1
to 9 were permanently absorbed and have lost their lien on the post of UDC
in the Ministry of Defence. Respondent Nos. 1 to 9 profess and claim to the
contrary.
4. The appointment letter dated 3rd September, 2010 issued by the
Ministry of Telecommunications appointing the nine respondents as Junior
Accountants reads:
"Government of India
Ministry of Communication & IT
Department of Telecommunications,
Office of the Pr. Controller of Communication
Accounts
DTO Building, Near Fire Station, Prasad Nagar,
New Delhi - 110005
Dated 03.09.2010
Sub - Appointment on Permanent Absorption Basis of
Sr. Acctt., Jr. Acctt., & LDC, in the CCA offices of the
WP(C) 2360 of 2015 Page 2 of 19
Department of Telecommunication (DoT) as a One time
Measure- Regarding.
(i)The appointing authority is pleased to offer
appointment to Shri Satya Prakash to the grade of Jt.
Accountant (all non-gazetted) in the Controller
Communication Accounts offices of the Department of
Telecommunication.
(ii)The candidate shall report to the Pr. Controller of
Communication Accounts, Delhi Region, DTO
Building, Prasad Nagar, New Delhi - 110 005 office
and will submit an undertaking as per Annexure to the
affect that she/ he accepts this offer unconditionally.
(iii)The offer of appointment is subject to the condition
that no disciplinary/ vigilance case of the types referred
to in the Department of Personnel and Training OM
No. 22011/4/91 Estt.(A) dated 14.09.1992 and OM No.
11012/11/2007-Estt.(A) dated 14.12.2007 is pending
against the officer or some punishment like stoppage of
increment etc. is in currency.
(iv)The inter se seniority of the officers who accept and
report to the CCAS of the respective circles would be
finalised in due course.
In respect of reserved category candidates i.e. SC/ST
candidates, the offer of appointment is subject to
verification of their caste status. After due verification,
necessary entries would invariably be made in the
Service Books of the officers concerned in terms of
instructions contained in DOP&T's OM No.
36011/16.80-Estt(SCT) dated 27.2.81; No. 42012/8/87-
Estt.(SCT) dated 14.10.87 and OM No.
36012/36(22)/89-Estt. (SCT) dated 16.06.89
(v)The officer would be on probation for a period of
two years from the date of joining.
(vi)The offer of appointment is subject to the outcome
of pending court case(s), if any.
WP(C) 2360 of 2015 Page 3 of 19
2. Candidates may accept the offer and joint
within 30 days of issue of this letter. The appointment
shall be deemed to be effective from the date of
assumption of charge...."
5. Respondents no.1 to 9 had accepted the offer of appointment in the
aforesaid letter and tendered technical resignation from the post of UDC held
by them in the Ministry of Defence. The Ministry of Defence, by their
communication dated 28th September, 2010, accorded their approval to the
„technical resignation without lien‟ on account of the respondents‟
appointment as Junior Accountants on „permanent absorption basis‟ with the
Department of Telecommunications.
6. In November, 2010, the Air Force Head Quarters had advertised 532
additional posts of Assistant in the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/-. Respondents
No.1 to 9, who were then working as Junior Accountants in the Ministry of
Telecommunications in the Grade Pay of Rs.2800/-, made a representation to
the Ministry of Defence seeking an affirmation that they continued to hold
their lien on the post of UDC and were accordingly eligible for selection to
the post of Assistant. Their claim was predicated on Fundamental Rules (FR)
No.13 and 14A, as their appointment as Junior Accountants in the
Department of Telecommunications was on probation for a period of two
years and they would hence retain their lien on the post of UDC in the
Ministry of Defence. In other words, they relied on the contradictions in the
appointment letter dated 3rd September, 2010 issued by the Ministry of
Telecommunications, which spoke of "permanent absorption without lien"
and no right to revert to the parent department, yet imposed a stipulation that
the respondents would remain on probation for two years. The respondents
submit that other employees appointed on identical terms in the Ministry of
WP(C) 2360 of 2015 Page 4 of 19
Telecommunications were allowed to retain lien in their prior posts in the
parent department.
7. When respondent nos.1 to 9 did not receive a positive response and
affirmation on their lien in the cadre of UDCs in the Ministry of Defence,
they filed the aforesaid OA claiming that they were entitled to retain their
lien in the parent department, as long as they were on probation.
8. The Ministry of Defence in paragraph 5 of the reply before the
Tribunal had stated as under:
"5. That subsequently, cadre restructuring took place,
in Nov 2010 in AFHQ i.e. Cadre to which these
applicants belonged to earlier. As a result, 532
additional posts of Assistant, which is in Pay-Band 2,
Grade Pay Rs 4600/- were created. The applicants
were absorbed in DoT in the post carrying Grade Pay
of Rs 2800/- in Pay Band-1, and it would have been
more beneficial if they had remained in AFHQ. Later,
the applicants started representing for grant of lien. In
all these representations, it has been contended that
they will be on probation for a period of two years and
in case they are not granted lien by this office they will
be left without lien which is against the Govt.
Instructions. It was further brought out that few
individuals who had joined along with them were
granted lien by some other Ministries/Departments."
9. The aforesaid reply would show the Ministry of Defence‟s ambivalent
stand.
10. After examining the aforesaid factual position and elucidating upon
legal principles the Tribunal has held as under:
10. It is thus apparent that by putting the condition
of probation in the appointment letter issued by the
DOT, an error was committed and because of this error,
the appointment of the applicants by the DOT cannot be
WP(C) 2360 of 2015 Page 5 of 19
deemed to have done on immediate permanent
absorption basis. Moreover, we have also observed that
there are certain conditions made in para G. of para-II
of the proforma for making the applications for
appointment, which makes clear that the selection was
not made on immediate permanent absorption basis and
that the discretion still lay with the DOT and such
discretion could only be applied subsequently.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of
the view that the appointment of the applicants by the
DOT could not be deemed to be an appointment on
permanent absorption basis. In that acse, proviso (i) to
F.R. 13 would not be applicable because this proviso
provides that no lien shall be retained of a Govt. servant
if he immediately proceeded on permanent absorption
basis to a post of service outside his service/ cadre/ post
in the Government. The applicants cannot be treated to
have been appointed on immediate permanent
absorption basis as aforenoted. The provisions of the
said proviso (i) would not be, therefore, applicable. In
that event the provisions in FRR 14-A would be
applicable which reads as under:
"F.R. 14-A. Except as provided in Rule 13
and clause (d) of this rule, a Government
servant‟s lien on a post may in no
circumstances be terminated, if the result will
be to leave him without a lien upon a regular
post.
In the present case, therefore, the applicants cannot
be left without lien on a regular post. Accordingly, they
would be entitled to maintain lien on the post held by
them in the Ministry of Defence when they were
appointed as Junior Accountant in the DOT on
30.09.2010.
12. In result, the OA is allowed. The decision of
the respondents in not extending the lien of the
WP(C) 2360 of 2015 Page 6 of 19
applicants on the earlier post they were holding cannot
be sustained and is accordingly quashed and set aside.
The respondents are directed to grant lien to the
applicants on the post of UDC which they were holding
prior to joining the new assignment with the DOT. The
respondents shall take necessary consequential action
within a period of three months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order. No costs.
11. In order to decide the controversy, we would like to refer to FR 13 and
14 A, which for the sake of convenience are reproduced below:
"F.R. 13. [A Government servant who has acquired lien
on a post retains the lien on that post;
(a) while performing the duties of that post;
(b) while on foreign service, or holding a
temporary post, or officiating in another post;
(c) during joining time on transfer to another post,
unless he is transferred along with his title to a post on
lower pay, in which case his lien is transferred to the
new post from the date on which he is relieved of his
duties in the earlier post;
(d) while on leave; and
(e) while under suspension
Provided that no lien of a Government servant shall be
retained:
(i) Where a Government servant has proceeded on
immediate absorption basis to a post or service outside
his service/cadre/post in the Government from the date
of absorption; and
(ii) On foreign service/deputation beyond the
maximum limit admissible under the orders of the
Government issued from time to time.]"
WP(C) 2360 of 2015 Page 7 of 19
"F.R. 14-A [(a) Except as provided in Rule 13 and
Clause (d) of this rule, a Government servant's lien on a
post may in no circumstances be terminated, if the result
will be to leave him without a lien upon a regular post.]
(d) A Government servant's lien on a post shall stand
terminated on his acquiring a lien on another post
(whether under the Central Government or State
Government) outside the cadre on which he is borne."
12. FR 13 states that a Government servant who has acquired lien on a
post would retain the lien even when he is on foreign service or holding a
temporary post or officiating in another post. The government servant would
also hold the lien on the previous post during the time of joining on transfer
to another post. Clauses (a) to (e) of FR 13, when read with the proviso,
mean that the government servant would continue to hold his lien on the
substantive post held by him till he is absorbed in another post or service on a
permanent basis. The proviso stipulates that the government servant shall not
retain his lien if he has proceeded on immediate absorption basis to a post in
a foreign service or outside his service cadre. The use of the word
„immediate‟ is significant. It connotes that the absorption should be
instantaneous and complete. The proviso pertinently stipulates that the lien
shall break and is not retained from the date of absorption. Once the
absorption is complete, the employee so absorbed cannot be reverted or claim
lien on the post held earlier. Clause (ii) of the proviso stipulates that
continuation in foreign service on deputation beyond the maximum limit
admissible under the government orders from time to time will also break the
lien. This clause is not applicable in the present case.
WP(C) 2360 of 2015 Page 8 of 19
13. However, Fundamental Rule 13 is not to be read in isolation but in
harmony with Fundamental Rule 14A. The latter Rule, while accepting the
primacy of FR 13, states that except as provided in FR 13 and clause (d) of
FR 14-A, a Government Servant‟s lien on a post should be terminated under
no circumstances if it leaves him without a lien on a regular post. Clause (d)
is categorical and states that the government servant‟s lien on the post shall
be terminated on acquiring lien on another post, whether under the Central
Government or the State Government, outside the cadre in which he was
borne.
14. On the aspect of retention of lien in the parent department in the case
of a government servant employed in another department, O.M. No.
60/37/63-Ests. (A), dated 14th July, 1967, is relevant and reads:-
No.60/37/63-Ests(A)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS.
...
New Delhi-1, the 14th July, 1967.
23rd Asodha,1889.
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Forwarding of applications of Government
servants working in a Department/Office of the Central
Government to posts in other Central Government
Departments/Offices - Question regarding the retention
of lion in the parent department.
----
The undersigned is directed to refer to the Office
Memoranda noted in the margin which lay down the
circumstances under which applications of Government
servants working in Central Government Department
Office for pouts in other Central Government
Departments/Offices / Public Sector and autonomous
socio- Government Organisations/private firms may be
forwarded. The procedure to be followed (in the Matter
of retention of lien, restrictions on pay and leave ' salary
and pension contributions) in respect of Government
servants who apply for posts in the public sector
undertakings/ autonomous semi-Government
organisations has boon laid down in this Ministry's
Office Memorandum No.70/62/62 Ests(A), dated the -
22nd January, 1966. The Question as to what procedure
should be followed in respect of Government servants
working in a particular Department /office who apply in
response to advertisements or circulars inviting
applications for posts in other Central Government
Departments/ Offices has been under consideration for
some time past. It has boon decided that the following
procedure should be followed in respect of such
Government servants:-
(1) The applications may be forwarded in
accordance with the instructions contained in the office
Memoranda noted in the margin irrespective of whether
the post applied for in the other Department/Office is
permanent or temporary.
(2) In the case of permanent Government servants,
their lien may be retained in the parent
department/Office for a period of two years. They
should either revert to the parent department/office
within that period or resign from the parent department,
office at the end of that period. An undertaking to abide
by those conditions may be taken from them at the time
of forwarding the applications to other Departments/
Offices.
(3) In the case of quasi-permanent Government
servants who wish to revert to the parent
department/Office within a period of two years, they may
be taken back in the parent Department/Office, provided
the posts held by them prior to their joining the new
department/office continue to exist. In any case, at the
end of two years from the date of release from the parent
department/office, they will have to resign from the
parent department/office, if reversion does not take
place. An undertaking to abide by those conditions may
to taken from them at the time of forwarding the
applications.
(4) As for temporary employees, they should as
matter of rule, be asked to resign from the parent
department/ office at the time of release from the parent
department/office. An undertaking to the effect that they
will resign from the parent department /office in the
event of their selection and appointment to the post
applied for, may be taken from them at the time of
forwarding the applications.
(5) In exceptional cases where it would take some
time for the other Department/ office to confirm such
Government servants duo to the delay in converting
temporary posts into permanent ones, or due to some
other administrative reasons, the permanent Government
servants may be permitted to retain their lien in the
parent department/office for one more year. While
granting such permission, a fresh undertaking similar to
the one indicated in sub-para (2) above may be taken
from the permanent Government Servants by the parent
department / office. A similar treatment may be
accorded to the quasi-permanent employees on their
giving an undertaking similar to the one indicated in
sub-para (3) above.
(6) During the period of two years referred to in
clause (2) end (3) above, the pay of the officer in the ex-
cadre post will be fixed in the pay scale of that post and
will be subject to the limits prescribed in Ministry of
Finance Office Memorandum No.F.10(24)- E111/60,
dated the 9th March, 1964 in cases where the minimum
of the scale of pay of the new post is substantially in
excess of his grade pay in the parent department and
such other orders as may be issued by them from time to
time (and subject also, in the case of members' of
CSS/CSSS/CSCS, to such orders as have been issued by
the MHA). No deputation allowance will be admissible
in any case.
2. These instructions are applicable to the employees in
all the Departments/Offices of the Government of India
(excluding the Ministry of Railways and Civilians in
Defence Services). The members of the Central
Secretariat Service/Central Secretariat Stenographers
service/ Central Secretariat Clerical Service will al so be
governed by these instructions in supersession of the
practice hitherto followed in respect of them.
3. In so far as persons serving in the Indian Audit and
Accounts Department are concerned, these instructions
are issued in consultation with the Comptroller and
Auditor General of India."
15. O.M.No.28015/2/80-Estt.(C) dated 22nd July, 1980 is illustrative and
relevant for the present decision and reads:-
O.M. No.28015/2/80-Estt(C)
Government of India/Bharat Sarkar
Ministry of Home Affairs/Grih Mantralaya
Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms
(Karmik Aur Prashasnik Sudhar Vibhag)
New Delhi-110001 Dt. 22 July, 1980
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject:- Forwarding of applications of Government
servants working in a Department/Office of the Central
Govt. Question regarding the retention of lien in the
parent Department.
The undersigned is directed to refer to the Ministry of
Home Affairs Office Memorandum No.60/37/63-Estt(A)
dated the 14th July, 1967 on the subject mentioned above
and to say that a question has been raised as to whether
in the case of temporary Government servant who apply
for post occurring in the same Department/Office which
is to be filled on the basis of direct recruitment an
undertaking to the affect that in the event of his selection
to the post he will resign from the post held by hi, is to
be obtained or not. It is further clarified that the
instructions contained in the Ministry of Home Affairs
Office Memorandum under reference will apply in all
such cases i.e. if a quasi-permanent Government servant
applied for a post, occurring whether in other dept. Or
the same Department recruitment to which is made on
direct recruitment basis he will be allowed to come back
to his post held by him earlier within a period of 2 years
provided the post exists. In the case of temporary
Government servant, he should invariably be asked to
resign from the post held by him at the time of release
from that post in the event of his selection and
appointment to the post applied for. An undertaking to
his effect may be taken from him at the time of
forwarding his application.
(B.S
NIM)
Deputy Secretary to the Government of India"
16. A reading of O.M. dated 14th July, 1967 and more particularly
paragraph 2 which is unequivocal that a permanent government servant
would retain lien in his parent department / office for a period of two years
and should either revert to the parent department/ office or resign from the
parent department at the end of this period. An undertaking to abide by these
conditions has to be taken at the time of forwarding the application to other
departments / offices. O.M. dated 23nd July, 1980 stipulates that when a
government servant applies for a post in another department or the same
department, recruitment to which is made on a direct recruitment basis, he
shall be allowed to come back to the post held by him earlier within two
years, provided that the post still exists. An undertaking to this effect has to
be taken from the government servant while forwarding his application. The
said stipulations would apply when a government employee joins foreign
service and is subsequently permanently absorbed in the said service.
17. Dealing with Fundamental Rule 14A, O.M.No.F.4(3)-E.IV/A/63 dated
1st October, 1963 and 2(1)-E-IV (A)/73 dated 22nd April, 1974 has been
issued, which reads as under:
No.F.4(3)-E.IV/A/63
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Expenditure
New Delhi, the 1st October, 1963
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject:- Termination of lien of permanent Government
servants on foreign service in the event of their
permanent absorption under the foreign employer.
------
The undersigned is directed to invite a reference to
rule 14-A(a) or the Fundamental Rules, which provides
that a Government servant's lien on a post may in no
circumstances be terminated even with his consent, if the
result will be to leave him without a lien or a suspended
lien upon a permanent post.
A question has been raised as to what procedure
should be followed for terminating the lien of a
permanent Government servant who is transferred on
foreign service and is subsequently absorbed in the
service of the foreign employer.
2. It is hereby clarified that F.R.14-A applies only so
long as a Government servant remains in Government
service. Obtaining of consent of the Government servant
to the termination of lien is necessary in certain
circumstances where the Government servant is to be
confirmed in another post under Government. Such
consent is not necessary in cases where the Government
servant ceases, to be in Government employ. The proper
course in such cases, where it is proposed to absorb him
in non-government service in public interest, would be to
ask the Government servant concerned to resign his
appointment under the Government with effect from the
date of such permanent absorption and the lien will
stand automatically terminated with the cessation of
Government service.
Such resignation from Government service will be
without prejudice in the entitlement of the Government
servants to the retirement benefits admissible under this
Ministry's Office Memorandum No.F.2(33)-EVA/60
dated the 10th November, 1960 (copy enclosed), provided
the transfer to the public sector undertakings or
Government or Semi Government Corporations is in the
public interest.
3. In all cases where a Government servant is to be
absorbed permanently by the foreign employer under his
organisation, it would be incumbent on him to consult
the parent employer before issuing orders absorbing the
Government servant permanently in his service. The
orders of permanent absorption should be issued only
after the resignation of the Government servant has been
accepted by the Government and with effect from the
date of such acceptance.
4. In so far as persons serving in the Indian Audit and
Accounts Department are concerned, these orders have
been issued in consultation with the Comptroller and
Auditor General.
Sd/- (R.S. Ganpati)
Deputy Secretary to the Government of India"
18. The said O.M. specifically deals with the procedure to be followed
when a permanent government servant, like the respondents herein, is to be
absorbed by a foreign employer which in this case would be the Department
of Telecommunications. The last paragraph of this O.M. is relevant for it
states that in all cases, where a government servant was to be absorbed
permanently by the foreign employer, it would be incumbent upon them to
consult the parent department before issuing the order absorbing the
government servant in service. Orders of permanent absorption should be
issued only after the resignation of the government servant was accepted by
the parent department / employer.
19. We have noticed the facts of the present case and the inherent
contradiction in the appointment letter dated 3rd September, 2010 by which
respondents No.1 to 9 were statedly appointed on permanent absorption with
immediate effect as Junior Accountant; and the stipulation that the
respondent would be on a probation period of two years with the Department
of Telecommunications. The nine respondents were to be on probation and
only on successful completion of the probation period, would they have
acquired a lien on the post of Junior Accountant. This condition relating to
the probation period contradicts the plea and contention that the said
respondents were absorbed on a permanent basis. A permanent absorption
stipulation cannot co-exist with a stipulation that the absorption would take
place only on successful completion of the probation period.
20. The petitioners accept and admit the aforesaid position and the
stipulation of probation. However, they claim that the condition relating to
the two years probation period was a clerical mistake. They rely on their
letter dated 18th February, 2013, which, it was submitted, was by way of
clarification and withdrew and cancelled the probation period clause. The
said contention has to be rejected for this letter was issued only after
Respondents No.1 to 9 had already approached the Tribunal and the OA was
pending. This letter was issued 15 months after the appointment of
Respondent No.1 to 9. The petitioners had therefore belatedly issued a self
serving clarification and unilaterally deleted the condition relating to the
probation. This letter would not determine the facts of this case. The
respondents No.1 to 9 had already staked their claim and requested both the
petitioner(s) and the Ministry of Defence to retain their lien on the post as
UDC in the Ministry of Defence.
21. Respondents Nos.1 to 9 have asserted and it is an accepted position
that a similar dispute had arisen in the case of one Jatinder Kumar, who had
identically applied and joined the Ministry of Telecommunications. He was
an employee of the Department of Personnel and Training and in his case, as
noticed by the Tribunal in the impugned order, the Department of Personnel
and Training, after examining the factual matrix and the legal position,
opined that Jatinder Kumar would continue to hold his lien till he was
permanently absorbed. The DoP&T had clarified that the fault was on
account of incorporation of the condition of probation period in the letter of
appointment. There was a contradiction for in case of permanent absorption,
probation period could not have been stipulated and in case there was a
probation period, there would be no permanent absorption. In view of the
appointment letter, the Department of Personnel and Training had opined that
it was not a case of permanent absorption. The Tribunal has quoted the
opinion expressed by the Department of Personnel and Training, which
reads:-
"the fault lies in the appointment condition of the
borrowing Department where the probation period was
erroneously provided in the case of permanent
absorption or vice-versa. In case of absorption to
another post in the Govt. the persons appointed are not
put on probation and in fact they are considered
transferred to the new post along with their lien.
Appointment does not seem to be a case of permanent
absorption." (emphasis provided)
22. The respondent nos.1 to 9 have pointed out that other employees
similarly situated were allowed to retain lien in the parent department and
have been repatriated. It is interesting to note that the Deputy Controller
(Administration) of the Department of Telecommunications had written letter
dated 15th January, 2013 enclosing therewith the applications of the nine
respondents working as Junior Accountants for grant of lien along with the
NOC for repatriation to the parent department. The letter records that this
communication was issued with the approval of the competent authority. The
letter clearly reflects that at that time the petitioners were not objecting to the
stand of respondent No.1 to 9. The Ministry of Defence had responded vide
letter dated 15th February, 2015 stating that the nine respondents had already
filed the OA in question, which was pending before the Tribunal. Since the
matter was sub judice, no action was required to be taken on the
representation. It may be relevant to note here that after the impugned order
was passed, the Department of Telecommunications had issued repatriation
order dated 18th May, 2015 and the nine respondents have been absorbed and
also promoted in the Ministry of Defence.
23. In view of above, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition
and the same is dismissed.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
SANJIV KHANNA, J
MAY 30, 2016
acm
