Delhi High Court
Smt. Yashoda Devi And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 10 December, 2019
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 10th December, 2019
+ W.P.(C) 12994/2019
SMT. YASHODA DEVI & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. D.K. Garg, Mr. Dhananjay Garg
and Mr. Abhishek Garg, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Jagjit Singh, Senior Standing
Counsel with Mr. Preet Singh and Mr.
Vipin Chaudhary, Advocates for
Railways.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
CMs.APPL 52995-52996/2019(Exemptions)
1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The applications stand disposed of.
CM.APPL 52997/2019(Addl. documents) & CM.APPL 52998/2019
3. The applications are dismissed as not pressed.
W.P.(C).12994/2019
4. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 16.10.2019 passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal (the 'Tribunal'). The Tribunal disposed
of the OA filed by the petitioners by passing the following order:
"After hearing both the sides at length, learned counsel
for the respondents submits that this OA is not maintainable in
the present form as applicants had directly approached the
Tribunal after issuing the legal notice.
2. We are convinced with the objection of learned
counsel for the respondents and we direct the applicants to
make a fresh representation within a week's time through
proper channel. The Competent Authority may decide the
applicants' representation within three months' thereafter.
However, a liberty is granted to applicants to re-
approach this tribunal, in case their grievances still subsists."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners received
a notice dated 27.11.2019 informing them that their services would be
terminated within 15 days. Learned counsel submits that he has been
left remediless and hence has approached this Court.
6. Since no one appears on behalf of the respondents/Railways, we have
requested Mr. Jagjit Singh, learned counsel, who is present in Court, to
enter appearance on behalf of the Railways in the matter.
7. Mr. Jagjit Singh submits that there is no infirmity in the order passed by
the Tribunal as the order was passed as far back as on 16.10.2019.
Moreover, liberty was granted to the petitioners herein to approach the
Tribunal after the representation is decided.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
9. Section 20(2)(b) of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, reads as
under:
"20. Applications not to be admitted unless other
remedies exhausted.--
(1).....
(2)...
(a)...
(b) where no final order has been made by the Government
or other authority or officer or other person competent to
pass such order with regard to the appeal preferred or
representation made by such person, if a period of six
months from the date on which such appeal was preferred or
representation was made has expired."
10. Reading of this section shows that although it is not mandatory in
nature, however it contains a requirement that the Tribunal would not
entertain an OA unless a representation is made to the concerned
governmental authority and a period of six months thereafter has
expired without any final order having been passed by such authority.
11. In this case, it is relevant to note that at the time of filing of the OA, no
interim relief was claimed by the applicants/petitioners herein. In fact,
in the column of 'Interim Relief, if any prayed' the petitioners had
stated 'Not at this stage'. In all fairness, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that at the time of filing of the OA, no notice of
termination of services had been received by the petitioners, hence no
interim relief was sought. However, learned counsel for the petitioners
is unable to explain as to why benefit of the liberty granted by the
Tribunal in the impugned order has not been availed.
12. Resultantly, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
13. However, it will be open for the petitioners to avail such remedy as may
be available to them, in accordance with law.
CM.APPL 52994/2019(stay)
14. The application stands dismissed in view of the order passed in the writ
petition.
G.S. SISTANI, J
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J
DECEMBER 10, 2019
pst
