Delhi High Court
Pawan Kumar Jain vs Union Of India & Ors. on 31 January, 2020
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 31st January, 2020
+ W.P.(C) 12221/2016 and CM No.48201/2016
PAWAN KUMAR JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rishabh Jain, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, Central
Govt. Standing Counsel for R-1 to 3 with Mr. T.P.
Singh, Adv.
Mr. Raman Kapur, Sr. Adv. with Mr. R.P. Singh,
Adv. for R- 4
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
ORDER
% 31.01.2020
D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)
W.P.(C) 12221/2016
1. This writ petition has been preferred with the following prayers:
"(a) Issue an appropriate writ of mandamus/ certiorari/
quo warranto or any other direction removing the Respondent
Nos. 5 to 7 from the posts of posts of Executive Director cum
Secretary, Deputy Director and Assistant Director;
(b) Issue an appropriate writ of mandamus/ quo
warranto or any other direction to the Respondent Nos. 5 to 7
to recoup the benefits drawn by them during the period of
illegal continuation of services at the posts of Executive
Director cum Secretary, Deputy Director and Assistant
Director from July 2014 to January 2017 and direct the
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to take appropriate action that illegally
and illegitimately paid remuneration for the above period may
be secured from the three named delinquent officers or the
members of committee of administration for conniving in
illegal actions to allow them to continue in service.
(b) Issue an appropriate writ of mandamus/ quo
warranto or any other direction to the Respondent Nos. 5 to 7
to recoup the benefits drawn by them during the period of
illegal continuation of services at the posts of posts of
Executive Director cum Secretary, Deputy Director and
Assistant Director from July 2014 to January 2017 and direct
the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to take appropriate action that
illegally and illegitimately paid remuneration for the above
period may be secured from the three named delinquent
officers or the members of committee of administration for
conniving in illegal actions to allow them to continue in
service.
(c) Issue an appropriate writ of mandamus/ quo
warranto or any other direction to the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2
to initiate/take any other consequential action/ disciplinary
proceedings or any other action against the Respondent Nos. 5
to 7 for having illegally continued in
occupation of the posts of Executive Director cum Secretary,
Deputy Director and Assistant Director;
(d) Pass such other and further orders that this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the present case."
2. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the
facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that several grievances have
been ventilated by this petitioner about the continued occupation of posts by
the respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 to the posts of Executive Director cum
Secretary, Deputy Director and Assistant Director in the Carpet Export
Promotion Council.
3. Looking to paras 5 to 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent
no.4, dated 1st February, 2019, it appears that:
Respondent no.5 reached the age of superannuation on 31 st
March, 2017;
Respondent no.6 retired on 30th September, 2016; and
Respondent no.7 retired on 31st August, 2016, after getting one
extension in their service.
4. Thus, all the aforesaid respondents against whom this writ petition has
been preferred are no more in employment with the Carpet Export Promotion
Council as on date. Since writ of quo warranto cannot be issued for the
removal of retired employees, therefore, no question whatsoever arises for
issuance of the same in this case.
5. Further, it also appears from the facts of the case that respondent nos.
5, 6 and 7 had been working for almost 30 years i.e. from the very inception
of Carpet Export Promotion Council. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the respondent no. 4 submitted that the total strength of the staff of this
Council is approximately 17 and for this reason the services of respondent
nos. 5, 6 and 7 were extended after their retirement in accordance with the
Service Rules of the Council, as annexed to the counter affidavit, dated 1st
February, 2019, filed by respondent no. 4 at page 247 of the paperbook.
6. For ready reference, paragraph 5.7 of the counter affidavit and
paragraph 16 of the Service Rules above mentioned are reproduced
hereunder :
"5.7. That the contents of para 5.7 are wrong and denied.
It is wrong and denied that no employee of respondent no.4 can
hold the office in the council beyond the age of 60 years unless
covered by the condition of being a medical or science
specialist. It is relevant to point out that the aforesaid condition
is applicable to Central Government Employees only which is
obvious from the averments' made in para 5.5 of the present
Writ Petition and not to the Respondent No. 4 which is governed
by its own rules and regulations. It is wrong and denied that
Respondent No. 5-7 are still continuing in service of Respondent
No. 4 holding their respective posts and drawing their
respective salaries. It is submitted that Respondent No. 5
superannuated on 31.3.2017, Respondent No. 6 on 30.9.2016
and Respondent No. 7 on 31.8.2016 after receiving one
extension as permissible under the Service Rules of Respondent
No. 4.
16. All employees shall retire from the service of the
Council on completion of 58 years. However, in respect of
existing employees, who have joined service upto 31 st
December, 1986, the retirement age shall be 60 years. The
Council, however, at its discretion may extend their services, if
they considered necessary. In this case, the proof of age will be
determined and binding on both the Council and the employee
by matriculation certificate/birth registration certificate."
7. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it appears that looking to the
exigencies of the Council, the services of the respondent nos. 5 to 7 were
extended, as permissible under the Service Rules of the Council.
8. In view of these facts, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition
as respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 have already retired even after extension of
their service period.
9. Moreover, in our considered view, there is no substance left in this
writ petition and the same is therefore dismissed.
CM No.48201/2016
1. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, this application also stands
disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
JANUARY 31, 2020/kr
