Delhi High Court
Sunita Raju & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 16 January, 2018
$~1.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 9025/2015
Date of decision : 16th January, 2018.
SUNITA RAJU & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Nemo.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Vertika Sharma, Advocate for the
applicants.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):
R.P. No. 6/2018 & CM Nos. 221/2018 & 222/2018 & 223/2018
This is an application for review of the order dated 27th January, 2017
alongwith the application for stay, application for filing additional
documents and condonation of delay of 290 days.
2. Before issuing notice on the application for additional documents,
application for stay and application for condonation of delay, we have
deemed it appropriate to examine the review application on merits.
3. The problem faced by the applicants is as a result of the applicants'
action. Services of fourteen direct recruit Production Assistants appointed in
1984 were terminated on account of malpractices, favourtism and nepotism
in selection. The termination order was challenged by the terminated
WP (C) No. 9025/2015 Page 1 of 5
Production Assistants, but they were not successful and the termination
orders became final. Nevertheless, the applicants re-engaged the terminated
Production Assistants vide order dated 6th January, 1994 treating them as a
fresh appointees. Benefit of previous service was not to be given for the
purpose of seniority. In spite of the afore-stated stipulation in the order
dated 6th January, 1994, these re-engaged terminated employees were
granted benefit of increments by taking into account past service. This
resulted in higher salary being paid to these re-engaged employees as
compared to their seniors appointed prior to 1994.
4. Some of non-applicants, who were petitioners in W.P. (C) No.
9025/2015 had filed OA No. 1191/2001, which was allowed by the Tribunal
vide order dated 7th May, 2002, recording as under:-
"12. It is further surprising that though the appointment
letter shows that they were appointed afresh on
sympathetic grounds and it was made clear at the time
of appointment on 6.1.1994 that their past services will
not be taken into consideration for the purpose of
seniority still on the basis of their past services
subsequent to the appointment those applicants were
given increments and their pay was fixed higher than
the petitioners in the O.A.
13. Further still surprising the respondents had audacity
to admit that even out of the present 34 applicants, 11
of them had been appointed prior to 6.1.1994 and can
be said to be senior to those appointees who were
appointed on sympathetic consideration on 6.1.1994.
So by fixing those candidates at higher salary even
these 11 applicants have been affected and their salary
is fixed at a lower stage then those appointees who had
not come through proper selection and who had come
only on sympathetic consideration.
WP (C) No. 9025/2015 Page 2 of 5
14. Thus this administrative action on the part of the
respondents fixing the salary of those appointees at a
higher stage definitely discriminate the petitioners as
equals have been treated in an unequal manner. Thus
there is clear violation of fundamental rights as
enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India so we have no hesitation to allow the OA.
Accordingly, we allow the O"A and direct the
respondents to re-examine the case of the applicants
and those applicants who had been appointed prior to
6.1.1994 their pay should be fixed at par, with their
juniors and whatever criteria had been adopted to give
increments those applicants that may be applied to all
the applicants. This may be done within a period of 3
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
No costs."
5. The applicants had challenged the aforesaid directions in Writ Petition
(C) No. 5271/2003, which was dismissed on 24th September, 2003. Special
Leave Petition preferred by the applicants was also dismissed. Thus,
directions given in the order of the Tribunal, viz, the petitioners in W.P. (C)
No. 9025/2015 became final.
6. In these circumstances, the applicants implemented the directions
given by the Tribunal in their order dated 7th May, 2002 passed in OA No.
1191/2001 and re-fixed the pay of the said employees.
7. In the meanwhile, another group of Production Assistants, who were
appointed on regular basis in 1992 filed another OA NO. 1653/2007 for
being treated at par and claimed parity. The same was disposed of by the
Tribunal vide order dated 18th January, 2008. This decision was
implemented by the applicants by stepping up their pay at par with their
juniors.
WP (C) No. 9025/2015 Page 3 of 5
8. Thereafter, the third set of appointees filed OA No. 1636/2008, which
was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 13th September, 2010. Writ
Petition (C) No. 2070/2010 filed by the applicants was dismissed by this
Court vide decision dated 25th March, 2010. However, the applicants did
not comply with the directions, which resulted in filing of a contempt
petition. At that stage, instead of granting benefit to the petitioners in OA
No. 1636/2008, the applicants recalled their earlier order granting stepping
up of pay to the petitioners in OA No. 1191/2001 and OA No. 1653/2007.
9. Aggrieved, the petitioners in OA No. 1191/2001 and OA No.
1653/2007 approached the Tribunal by way of OA No. 3520/2010 and OA
No. 674/2011. These OAs were dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated
7th July, 2015. By the judgment dated 27th January, 2017, we have allowed
the said OAs and have directed that the petitioners would be given benefit of
the decisions in their favour, which have attained finality and had been
implemented.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the applicants and do not find any
ground to review our order dated 27th January, 2017. Counsel for the
applicants has stated that there will be several other employees, about 600 in
number, who would be entitled to similar benefits. We have not decided the
other cases. In case there are similar claims by third parties, it will be open
to the applicants to take the plea of limitation, etc. Accordingly, the relief
can be moderated. The next submission is that the applicants have passed an
order dated 24th November, 2017 whereby the terminated re-engaged
Production Assistants, who were given fresh appointment on 6th January,
1994, have been given back dated seniority by counting their service and
WP (C) No. 9025/2015 Page 4 of 5
appointment from 1984. Application for additional documents, is to place
this order, passed after decision dated 27th January, 2017, on record. We do
not think that the applicants vide the said order can obliterate the orders
passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 1191/2001, decided on 7th May, 2002 or
the order dated 18th January, 2008 passed in OA No. 1653/2007, which
direction upon consideration by the applicants had resulted in stepping up of
the pay of the petitioners in OA No. 1653/2007. Directions given by the
Tribunal which have attained finality and have been implemented cannot be
unwritten and erased, in this manner. Neither can our decision dated 27th
January, 2017, be effaced and obliterated.
9. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are not issuing notice on the
applications for additional documents and condonation of delay. The review
application is accordingly dismissed, as we do not find any merit in the
same. Consequently, all pending applications are dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.
JANUARY 16, 2018
VKR
