Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Ors vs Karam Chand on 4 February, 2020
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 4th February, 2020
+ W.P.(C) 1230/2020
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through : Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC.
versus
KARAM CHAND ..... Respondent
Through :
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
JUDGMENT
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
C.M. No.4233/2020 (exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.1230/2020
1. The present petition is directed against order dated 09.05.2012
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short)
and order dated 20.01.2017 passed in an MA filed by the respondent
when the order of 09.05.2012 was not complied with.
2. It may be noted that order dated 09.05.2012 was a consent
order, which reads as under:-
"After some arguments, learned counsel appearing for
the parties are ad idem that present OA may be disposed
of with a direction to respondents that applicant would
be considered for his re-engagement as casual labourer
and regularization as group D employee on availability
of next vacancies by relaxing maximum age limit to the
extent of length of service rendered by him as daily rated
worker. Ordered accordingly.
OA stands disposed of."
3. Other things apart, we find that there is gross unexplained
delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this court. The only
explanation which has been rendered is in para 14 of the writ petition,
which we reproduce below:-
"14. That the learned Tribunal has passed the first
impugned order dated 09.05.2012 and in compliance of
the said order dated 09.05.2012, the petitioners vide
their letter dated 24.12.2012 informed the respondent to
contact the contractor of Out Sourcing Agency for work
but the respondent has not replied to the said letter nor
has disclosed the same in his application M.A.No.1939
of 2013 filed before the learned Tribunal. Thereafter the
respondent filed the said M.A.No.1939 of 2013 for
implementation of order dated 09.05.2012 to which the
petitioners have filed their detailed reply, while
contesting the same and the same was adjudicated vide
order dated 20.1.2017 by the learned Tribunal and
thereafter the respondent filed the Contempt Petition
No.308 of 2017 for initiating contempt proceedings
against the petitioners herein, wherein the petitioners
have filed a compliance affidavit and after having
satisfied with the said compliance affidavit, the learned
Tribunal was pleased to drop the said contempt
proceedings. Thereafter the respondent was re-engaged
as casual labour in the department vide its order dated
4.9.2017. On 31.12.2018, respondent submitted
application for regularization of his service in
IMD/Petitioners. Thereafter the Department had
processed the present case file to the Department of
Personnel & Training on 03.06.2019, which on
28.08.2019 recommended that the Department does not
agree to the proposal of his regularization and the
petitioner-Department is also advised to agitate the
matter before the higher court clearly pointing out that
such regularization would be against the spirit of Apex
Court's directions. Thereafter the file was entrusted to
the Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of legal
Affairs, which vide advise dated 16.10.2019, in terms of
DOPT opinion, the petitioner-Department is advised to
challenge the said orders of the learned Tribunal.
Accordingly the Department approached the litigation
Department of High Court and engaged the present
counsel on 06.11.2019 and thereafter on 16.12.2019 the
entire record of the learned Tribunal was provided to
the present counsel for preparing the writ petition and to
file the same before this Hon'ble Court. Hence there are
no latches or delay in filing the present writ petition. In
case there is any delay or latches the same may kindly
be condoned in view of the submissions and
circumstances elaborated hereinabove."
4. As per the Tribunal's order of 09.05.2012, the respondent was
to be considered for re-engagement as a causal labourer and for
regularization as Group 'D' employee on availability of vacancies by
relaxing the minimum age limit to the extent of length of service
rendered by him as a daily rated worker. Para 14 detailed above
shows that in compliance of the order, an offer was made to the
respondent to contact the contractor of the Outsourcing Agency for
work. The other reasons mentioned for the delay are that the
respondent filed a contempt petition in 2017 and the matter remained
pending thereafter. In view of the above, we find that the petitioner
is unable to sufficiently explain the delay in compliance with order
dated 09.05.2012 as also the delay in approaching this court.
5. In our view, if it was so aggrieved, the petitioner should have,
at the first available opportunity, assailed order dated 09.05.2012 in
accordance with law. Even otherwise, we find that the impugned
order of 09.05.2012 is a consent order and therefore requires no
interference on merits either.
6. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Director of Elementary Education,
Odisha and Others vs. Pramod Kumar Sahoo reported as AIR 2019
SC 4755 in support of his contention that consent of the parties
cannot be a ground to reject the present writ petition. We are of the
opinion that this judgment would not apply to the facts of the present
case since the petitioner did not take any steps to seek recall of order
dated 09.05.2012 and the writ petition has been filed after
unexplained, inordinate delay.
7. We accordingly find no merit in this petition ; and the delay
also remains unexplained. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed.
C.M. No.4234/2020 (stay)
7. Since the main petition is dismissed, this application is also
dismissed.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.
FEBRUARY 04, 2020/Ne
