Delhi High Court
Birjesh Kumar And Ors vs P.K. Gupta And Ors on 30 January, 2018
$~18.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 843/2018 and CM APPL. 3592-3594/2018
BIRJESH KUMAR AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Anand Nandan, Advocate
versus
P.K. GUPTA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
ORDER
% 30.01.2018
1. The petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 20.01.2017 passed by
the Tribunal in a contempt petition filed by them arising out of O.A.
No.4088/2012, that was disposed of by recording the statement of the
counsel for the respondents/NrDMC that out of six petitioners, the services
of three petitioners, namely, petitioners No.2, 4 and 6 were continued on a
contract basis and in respect of the remaining three petitioners No.1, 3 and 5,
the respondents had expressed their readiness and willingness to engage
them on contract basis, if they would approach the authorities for issuance of
such a contract. While recording the aforesaid statement made by the
counsel for the respondents/NrDMC, the contempt petition filed by the
petitioners was disposed of on 20.1.2017, with liberty granted to petitioners
No.1, 3 and 5 to approach the respondents for seeking appointment on a
contractual basis, with a rider that they would be allowed to join on
furnishing an undertaking that they would not claim regularisation.
Aggrieved by the last part of the observations made in the order dated
20.01.2017, the petitioners have filed the present petition.
2. Mr. Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the
directions issued by the Tribunal, allowing the petitioners to join on a
contractual basis on furnishing an undertaking that they will not claim
regularisation runs contrary to the interim order dated 28.11.2014, passed by
the Tribunal in a Misc. Application filed by the petitioners in O.A.
No.4088/2012. He submits that vide order dated 28.11.2014, the
respondents were directed to permit the petitioners to continue their services
on a contractual basis without insisting that they furnish an undertaking to
the effect that they shall not claim regularisation. He states that the said
order has been completely overlooked by the Tribunal in the impugned
order.
3. What learned counsel for the petitioners has conveniently failed to
point out is that the captioned O.A. was finally disposed of by the Tribunal
vide judgment dated 06.08.2015, wherein the observations made on
28.11.2014 do not find mention. On perusing the judgment dated
06.08.2015, it transpires that the O.A. filed by the petitioners was disposed
of by the Tribunal without going into the merits of the case, by simply
directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for
regularisation of their services in terms of the judgment of the High Court in
W.P.(C) 6798/2002 entitled Sonia Gandhi and Ors. vs. Govt. of NCT of
Delhi, decided on 06.11.2013. Further, it was directed that if Nr.D.M.C. fills
up the vacancies of Cattle Catchers on a regular basis, then the cases of the
petitioners shall also be considered alongwith others, by giving them
adequate age relaxation. The timeline given to Nr.D.M.C. to make
compliances was four months, which they had exhausted without taking
timely action and aggrieved thereby, the petitioners had filed a contempt
petition that has been disposed of by the impugned order dated 20.01.2017.
4. Having regard to the fact that the judgment dated 06.08.2015 has not
been challenged by any of the petitioners on the ground that the directions
issued in the interim order dated 28.11.2014 do not find any mention therein,
it has to be held that the said judgment has attained finality and a conscious
decision was taken by the Tribunal not to incorporate the interim order
passed on 28.11.2014, in the final judgment. Given the above positions, we
do not see any justification for interfering in the impugned order dated
20.01.2017, passed by the Tribunal, disposing of the contempt petition filed
by the petitioners.
5. The petition is dismissed in limine alongwith the interim applications.
HIMA KOHLI, J
REKHA PALLI, J
JANUARY 30, 2018
rkb/na/sk
