Delhi High Court
Swapan Kumar Pal vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 January, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: January 30, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 866/2018 & CMs 3673-74/2018
SWAPAN KUMAR PAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prasenjit Keswani, Mr. Manu
Beri and Mr. Raghvendra Pratap Singh,
Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC and
Mr. Nikhil Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondents
No.1 & 2
Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Ms. Rhea Verma
and Mr. Yuvraj Sharma, Advocates for
respondent No.3-NBCC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Vide impugned order of 22nd January, 2018 (Annexure P-1)
petitioner's case for extension of his tenure has not been recommended to
Public Enterprises Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as 'PESB')
and petitioner has been directed to hand over the charge of Director
(Finance), NBCC (India) Limited to Sh. R.K. Arora w.e.f. 1st February,
2018.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner assails impugned order on the
ground that non-extension of petitioner's tenure has not been approved by
Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (hereinafter referred to as ACC).
Attention of this Court is drawn to the Guidelines regarding Board level
appointments in Central Public Sector Enterprises (Annexure P-10 colly.)
to point out that as per Clause 6 in Chapter 4 of the said Guidelines, the
recommendation of PESB has to be necessarily referred to ACC for
orders even if the incumbent does not meet the benchmark for extension
of tenure. Chapter 7 of the aforesaid Guidelines also mandates that all
cases for premature termination of Board level appointments in CPSEs
including non-extension of tenure would require approval of the ACC.
3. Learned Additional Solicitor General of India for respondent No.3-
NBCC maintains that no approval of ACC is required for passing the
impugned order as the decision of the Government is not to extend the
tenure of petitioner. It is submitted that the Government has forwarded its
recommendation for non-extension of petitioner's tenure to PESB, which
in turn shall place it before the ACC for approval. It is pointed out that
petitioner has kept lien alive in his parent department and after expiry of
his tenure with third respondent, he can always join back his parent
department.
4. Learned Central Government Standing Counsel for respondents
No.1 & 2 draws attention of this Court to Chapter 10 of the aforesaid
Guidelines (Annexure P-10 colly.) to point out that matters relating to
appointment falling within the purview of ACC have to be dealt with by
the Central Administrative Tribunal and so, petitioner ought to be
relegated to avail of the remedies before the Central Administrative
Tribunal, New Delhi.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that
petitioner's tenure is going to expire tomorrow i.e. on 31st January, 2018,
and if impugned order is not stayed, then it would prejudice petitioner as
the non-extension of tenure does not have the approval of ACC.
6. Upon preliminary hearing, it becomes evident that in view of
Chapter 10 of the aforesaid Guidelines (Annexure P-10 colly.) matters
relating to ACC have to be handled by the Central Administrative
Tribunal. In view thereof, this matter is required to be placed before the
Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi in the post-lunch session
today.
7. Considering the urgency involved in this case, Registry is directed
to send this matter to the Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, New
Delhi forthwith through special messenger, so that petitioner is able to
obtain appropriate orders today from the concerned Bench of Central
Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi.
Copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court
Master to learned counsel for petitioner.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 30, 2018
s
