Khazan Singh vs Union Of India & Anr.
2017 Latest Caselaw 1434 Del

$~2.
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                       WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) No. 950/2017
                                         Date of decision: 16th March, 2017
        KHAZAN SINGH                                       ..... Petitioner
                            Through Mr. D.K. Garg, Mr. Dhananjay Garg &
                            Mr. Abhishek Garg, Advocates.

                            versus

        UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                        ..... Respondents
                      Through Mr. Rakesh Kumar,CGSC & Mr.
                      Dushyant Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
                      Mr. Rajinder Wali, Advocate for respondent No.
                      2.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):

        Khazan Singh in this writ petition impugns the order dated 8th
November, 2016 passed by the Principal Bench of the Central
Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) whereby OA No. 4400/2012
filed by him has been dismissed on the ground of delay and
laches/limitation and estoppel.
2.      The petitioner herein was engaged as a casual worker on daily
wages. The engagement was without following any selection process.
3.      The petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 1995/1993 seeking
regularisation. This writ petition was disposed of by consent order dated
30th May, 1997, which has been reproduced in the impugned order and
reads as under:-
            "C.M. No. 4846/97 and CW 1995/93
              This is an application moved by the Petitioner for

W.P. (C) No. 950/2017                                             Page 1 of 4
             the disposal of writ petition in terms of letter dated
            12.2.1997 of ITPO General Manager (Admn.);
            2.4.1997 of ITPO, Senior Manager and para 3 of the
            reply dated 26.5.1997 filed on behalf of respondents 1
            and 2.
               Leaned counsel for the respondents states that he has
            no objection for disposal of the writ petition in terms
            thereof.
               In view of the stand taken by the parties, the writ
            petition is disposed of in terms of the letters dated
            12.2.1997 of ITPO.         General Manager (Admn.)
            2.4.1997 of ITPO, Senior Manager and para 3 of the
            reply dated 26.5.1997 filed on behalf of respondents 1
            and 2. Para-3 of the reply dated 26.5.1997 says:-

            "3.     The actual terms of agreements reached
            between the parties are as follows:-

        (a) The management is desirous to settle the matter with
            the concerned employees and accordingly, it was
            agreed that employees will be absorbed in the existing
            regular vacancies to the extent of vacancies available.
        (b) As regards those employees in the writ petition No.
            1995 filed on behalf of 35 persons and who cannot be
            regularized immediately due to not having sufficient
            vacancies, the status due will be maintained.

            The aforesaid terms were communicated vide Letter
            No. 4 ITPO (5) E, 1/97 dated 12.2.1997 and also
            clarified subsequently vide letter No. 4-ITPO (5) E,
            1/97 dated 2.4.1997 that the status quo will be
            maintained till they are regularised in future."

               The statements contained in the two letters and the
            reply is taken on record and writ petition is disposed of
            in terms thereof. Parties shall be bound by the terms."

4.      A reading of the said order would indicate that the petitioner had
accepted the offer made by the respondents in terms of an agreement as per
which the petitioner and other casual workers were to be absorbed in the
existing regular vacancies to the extent vacancies were available.

W.P. (C) No. 950/2017                                                Page 2 of 4
 5.      Pursuant to the said order, the respondents had made an offer of
appointment vide letter dated 13th/15th April, 1998 to the petitioner for
regular appointment to the post of Attendant, subject to the terms and
conditions stated therein. The petitioner was required to accept the terms
and conditions of the offer on or before 30th April, 1998. The petitioner
accepted the said offer of appointment and became a regular appointee to
the post of Attendant.
6.      Six-seven years thereafter, the petitioner made a representation dated
6th February, 2004 claiming and seeking fixation of seniority in the grade
of Attendant with effect from 15th December, 1989.
7.      By the Memorandum dated 21st April, 2005, the petitioner was
informed that service on muster roll prior to 15th December, 1989 cannot
be clubbed with the period of daily wage service subsequently rendered by
him as daily wage Attendant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that a reading of this letter/memorandum dated 21st April, 2005 would
show that the petitioner was treated as a regular Attendant with effect from
15th December, 1989 as he was entitled to benefit of daily wage service
with effect from 15th December, 1989. The petitioner is misreading this
memorandum.             The petitioner has not placed on record copy of the
representation dated 6th February, 2004 in response to which the
memorandum/letter dated 21st April, 2005 was written.              From the
memorandum/letter dated 21st April, 2005, it is clear that the petitioner was
appointed as an Attendant with effect from 12th May, 1998 by giving him
benefit of daily wage service as a Peon/Attendant i.e. the petitioner was
earlier a daily wager. The respondent did not accept and acknowledge that
the petitioner was appointed as an Attendant on regular basis with effect
from 15th December, 1989.
8.      The petitioner filed OA No. 4400/2012, fourteen years after the offer
of appointment dated 13th/15th April, 1998 was made and long after the

W.P. (C) No. 950/2017                                              Page 3 of 4
 petitioner was given appointment as an Attendant on regular basis with
effect from 23rd April, 1998. The delay and laches is apparent. The prayer
made was barred by limitation. In case, the prayer made is now accepted,
there will be several others, more than hundred in number, who would be
entitled to same/identical relief.
9.      The offer of regularisation was made and given to the petitioner
prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in
Secretary State of Karnataka and Others versus Umadevi (3) and Others,
(2006) 4 SCC 1.
10.     We are also in agreement with the Tribunal that in the present case
the petitioner with open eyes had accepted and agreed to the consent order
dated 30th May, 1997 by which Writ Petition No. 1995/1993 was disposed
of. The petitioner was aware and conscious that the regularisation will be
effective from a future date, when the order dated 30th May, 1997 was
passed. The petitioner cannot now raise stale and old claims, which he had
agreed to forego and were settled when the consent order dated 30th May,
1997 was passed.
        The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. No costs.



                                              SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J. MARCH 16, 2017 VKR