Ex Si/Fsn Pinki vs Union Of India & Ors.
2017 Latest Caselaw 3939 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                         W.P.(C) 11921/2015

                                        Date of decision: 4th August, 2017

      EX SI/FSN PINKI                                  ..... Petitioner
                          Through:    Mr.N.L.Bareja, Advocate.

                          versus

      UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                  ..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr.Saroj Bridyawat, Advocate and
                             Mr.Vivek Kumar Sigh, Law
                             Officer/CRPF.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

      SANJIV KHANNA, J. (Oral)

The petitioner Ms.Pinki challenges office order dated

18.09.2015 by which her services as Sub-Inspector (Staff Nurse)

were terminated on the ground that she was not eligible to be

considered in the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category, in view

of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Singh vs. UOI,

(2015) 4 SCC 697.

2. The petitioner belongs to the Jat Community and was

residing and domiciled at State of Uttar Pradesh.

3. The petitioner had secured the said appointment in terms of

WP(C) 11921/2015 Page 1 certificate issued by State of Uttar Pradesh dated 12.07.2014. This

certificate records the petitioner belongs to Jat community, which

has been recognized as a backward class by the Government of

India, Ministry of Welfare vide resolution No. 12011/68/93-

BCC(C) dated 10.09.1993 as published in the Gazette of India

Extraordinary Part-I Section-1 dated 13.09.1993.

4. On the last date of hearing, we had asked the counsel for the

petitioner to verify whether Jat community in the State of Uttar

Pradesh has been included and recognized as backward class in the

notification dated 13.09.1993. Learned counsel for the petitioner

very fairly states that Jat community in the State of Uttar Pradesh

has not been included and recognized as a backward class in the

said notification.

5. The petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit of the

subsequent notification dated 04.03.2014 in view of the judgment of

the Supreme Court in case of Ram Singh (supra) which had struck

down the aforesaid notification.

6. The petitioner has also contended that she was not been paid

salary for the period she had worked. However, it is now accepted

WP(C) 11921/2015 Page 2 that the salary was paid after legal notice was issued and before the

present writ petition was filed.

7. We are not inclined to remit the matter to the respondents for

fresh consideration by issue of show cause notice etc., as this is not

required once the petitioner has accepted that she belongs to Jat

community, which is not recognized as backward class in the

notification issued on 13.09.1993.

8. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the

present writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.

                                             SANJIV KHANNA, J


                                             NAVIN CHAWLA, J

AUGUST 04, 2017/mr




WP(C) 11921/2015                                                   Page 3