Shyam Sunder vs Union Of India & Ors.
2017 Latest Caselaw 5732 Del

$~

*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                    +      W.P.(C) No.8895/2017

                                 Date of Decision: 16th October, 2017

     SHYAM SUNDER                                       ..... Petitioner
                 Through:              Mr.R.K. Shukla, Adv.

                        versus

     UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                              ..... Respondent

                   Through:            Mr.Vinod Diwakar, Adv. with
                                       Mr.Akshay Agarwal, Adv. &
                                       Mr.Ravindra, Adv. for Respondent
                                       Nos.1 to 4.

           CORAM:
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
           HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

     REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)

1. The present writ petition assails the order dated 5th February,

2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal

Bench, New Delhi in OA No.3767/2012, whereby the Tribunal has

dismissed the Original Application (OA) filed by the Petitioner.

2. The Petitioner was engaged as a Khalasi on casual basis

w.e.f 1st May, 1993, in the office of the Respondent No. 4 on daily

rate basis and he served for 196 days upto 6 th July, 1994. He was

not re-engaged thereafter and in these circumstances he preferred

an OA No. 1075/1995 before the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Delhi challenging his disengagement by the Respondents. The

aforesaid OA was disposed of vide order dated 10 th September,

1999 with a direction to the Respondents that if the Petitioner

applies for re-engagement and if they require casual labor they

would consider him for re-engagement in preference to those who

had rendered lesser service prior to the date of his disengagement.

3. In the year 2000, the Petitioner filed a Contempt Petition No.

270/2000 alleging therein that the Respondents had engaged his

juniors and had ignored him for re-engagement. Upon the

Respondents denying the said averments of the Petitioner, the

Tribunal vide its order dated 29th October, 2001 dismissed the

contempt petition by reiterating its earlier directions that in the case

the Respondents require casual laborers they should consider the

Petitioner's case for re-engagement in preference to those who

have rendered lesser service prior to the date of his disengagement

and thereafter consider his case for grant of temporary status and

eventually his regularization, in accordance with relevant rules and

instructions on the subject.

4. Thereafter for over 11 years, the Petitioner took no steps and

in July 2012, armed with a reply dated 27th February, 2012 to his

RTI Application, he filed a fresh Contempt Petition No. 458/2012

alleging therein that he had learnt through the reply under RTI that

three of his juniors had been re-engaged by the Respondents. He

alleged that the action of the Respondents in ignoring him for re-

engagement was in violation of the order dated 10 th September,

1999 passed by the Tribunal in his OA. The said contempt was

dismissed as withdrawn on 4th July, 2012.

5. In these circumstances, the Petitioner then approached the

Tribunal by filing OA No. 3767/2012 on 6th November, 2012,

praying for a direction to the Respondents for implementation of

the order dated 10th September, 1999 passed by the Tribunal in OA

No. 1075/1995. Before the Tribunal, the Petitioner contended that

the Respondents were liable for punishment under Section 340 of

Code of Criminal Procedure for perjury, as they had misled the

Tribunal by submitting false contentions and affidavits due to

which his earlier Contempt Petition had been dismissed. The

Tribunal, however, upon consideration of the submissions made by

the counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondents, dismissed the

OA. The Tribunal found that through the present OA, the

Petitioner tried to re-argue the issues which already stood decided

in his earlier OA No.1075/1995 decided on 10th September, 1999.

The Tribunal further held that the allegations of perjury stated to

have been committed by the Respondents in an earlier contempt

petition, could not now be decided in a subsequent OA and,

therefore, found no merit in the same.

6. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal dismissing

his OA, the Petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

7. Before us, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has raised

the same pleas as have been raised before the Tribunal. His main

submission is that the Respondent had earlier informed the

Tribunal in 2001 in response to his earlier Contempt Petition, that

no person junior to the Petitioner had been engaged but he has now

learnt that the said averment was wholly false. He, therefore, prays

that the Respondents ought to be directed to re-engage the

Petitioner. On a query by the Court as to how the OA was

maintainable after more than 23 years of the Petitioner's

disengagement, and that too after having worked only for 196 days

in 1993-1994, the Petitioner's counsel is unable to give any

satisfactory explanation except submitting that he had received the

information under the Right to Information Act, only in the year

2012.

8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has also urged that the

Respondents have flouted the specific directions given by the

Tribunal while allowing the OA. He reiterates that vide order

dated 10th September, 1999, the Respondents were categorically

directed by the Tribunal that as and when the Petitioner applies for

re-engagement and if they require casual labour, they would

consider him for re-engagement in preference to those who had

rendered lesser service prior to the date of his disengagement. He

submits that the Respondents having violated these directions, the

Tribunal ought to have directed them to re-engage the Petitioner.

9. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the Petitioner, we find no merit in the petition. The Tribunal

has, in our view, rightly held that there was no cause of action for

filing the present Original Application. The undisputed position is

that the Petitioner had been disengaged since 7th July, 1994 and he

has never been re-engaged in these 23 years. He has not filed any

document to show as to what steps were taken by him after 1999 or

even after 29th October, 2001-when his contempt petition was

dismissed, to either point out that any person with lesser service

than him has been re-engaged, or that there was a requirement of

casual labour by the Respondents. Even otherwise, we are of the

view that the Petitioner having worked only for 196 days-and that

too more than 23 years ago, could not now be allowed to re-agitate

his right to be re-engaged as casual labour, by trying to rely on

some information obtained under RTI-which too was applied for

and obtained highly belatedly, to show that some persons who were

at one point of time junior to him, have been re-engaged.

Pertinently, the Petitioner is unable to point out as to when those

persons were re-engaged, and as to what steps he had taken to seek

re-engagement with the Respondents except making a

representation in the year 2011.

10. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the order

passed by the Tribunal. We find absolutely no merit in the petition

and the same is dismissed.

(REKHA PALLI) JUDGE

(VIPIN SANGHI) JUDGE OCTOBER 16, 2017/aa.