Delhi High Court
Sh. Devendra vs Ndmc, Through Its Secretary on 21 January, 2022
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 21.01.2022
+ W.P.(C) 631/2022
DEVENDRA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr Ujjwal Goel, Adv.
versus
NDMC, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY ..... Respondent
Through Ms Sriparna Chatterjee, Mr
Soumitra Chatterje and Mr Piyush
Jain, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):-
1. We had heard the matter at some length on the previous date i.e.,
11.01.2022. After hearing Mr Ujjwal Goel, learned counsel for the
petitioner, on the said date, the following was recorded:
"2. This is a writ petition directed against the order dated
07.09.2018, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [in
short "the Tribunal"] in O.A.No.10/2016.
3. First and foremost, we are unable to gather as to why there has
been a delay in bringing up the present writ petition.
3.1. Mr Ujjwal Goel, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says
that the writ petition was filed on 07.03.2019. There is, however,
nothing on record to show that the writ petition was filed on
07.03.2019.
3.2. According to Mr Goel, upon filing the writ petition, diary
no.211540 was allocated to the matter by the Registry.
3.3. The Registry will submit a report as to when the writ petition
was filed, in the first instance.
4. That apart, the main grievance of the petitioner is that the
respondent i.e., New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) wrongly
did not grant compassionate appointment to him as a Beldar.
W.P.(C) 631/2022 1/6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:24.01.2022
14:19:49
4.1. It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner died in
harness on 19.12.1999. It is also not in dispute that, at the
relevant time, the petitioner had not attained majority. The
petitioner attained majority in 2003.
4.2. The record also shows that the petitioner was, admittedly,
recommended for compassionate appointment on 20.12.2007. The
petitioner's name was put down at serial no.3.
5. The Tribunal has ruled against the petitioner, on the ground of
delay and laches.
5.1. Unfortunately, the list of dates, both filed before the Tribunal
and this Court, is woefully deficient. It is the lack of preparation in
the matter, which has made it very difficult for us to ascertain the
correct facts.
5.2. We have, repeatedly, asked Mr Goel as to, when were the
representations filed seeking appointment to the post of Beldar on
compassionate ground. This question was put to him as, according
to list of dates filed, both before this Court and the Tribunal, the
first representation appears to have been made on 18.08.2003.
5.3. Thereafter, there is no reference to any representation;
instead a bald assertion is made that the petitioner visited the
office of the respondent to ascertain the status of his appointment
on compassionate ground.
5.4. It appears (and it is the assertion of the petitioner) that the
Right to Information (RTI) route was accessed by him in
September 2012. Pursuant to the RTI route accessed by the
petitioner, it appears that, on 10.10.2012, the petitioner obtained
the information that his name had been recommended by the
competent authority for appointment on compassionate grounds.
5.5. The petitioner's claim is that, thereafter, he visited the office
of the respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds.
Concededly, after 10.10.2012, when the petitioner became aware
of the fact that his name had been shortlisted for compassionate
appointment on 20.12.2007, no steps were taken to initiate a legal
process. The original application was filed with the Tribunal only
on 18.12.2015. There is a gap of nearly three years, between
10.10.2012 and 18.12.2015.
W.P.(C) 631/2022 2/6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:24.01.2022
14:19:49
5.6. The record also shows that the petitioner sets up a case that
he made representations, thereafter, on 31.10.2012,
27.02.2013/28.02.2013 followed by representations dated
20.09.2013, 23.03.2014, 12.08.2014, 25.08.2014 and 23.09.2014.
Pertinently, representations dated 27.02.2013/28.02.2013,
25.08.2014 and 23.09.2014 are not even on record.
5.7. It is also the case of the petitioner that, once again, a RTI
application was submitted on 03.12.2014. This RTI application
received a response from the Public Information Officer (PIO),
according to the petitioner, on 17.04.2015. Evidently, an appeal
was filed by the petitioner with the Appellate Authority under the
RTI Act in 2015, qua which response was received on 17.06.2015.
6. According to the petitioner, on 29.05.2015, the petitioner was
called by the office of the Director of NDMC for a personal
meeting for progressing the appointment on compassionate
ground.
6.1. As per the petitioner, since the appointment was not made, a
legal notice was served by his counsel on NDMC. The legal notice
is dated 20.07.2015. As noticed above, the subject O.A. i.e.,
O.A.No.10/2016 was filed with the Tribunal on 18.12.2015.
7. Prima facie, according to us, there has been a delay and laches,
if not between 2010 and 2012, certainly between 2012 and
18.12.2015 when the petitioner approached the Tribunal for the
first time. However, before we take a final view in the matter, we
wish to ascertain as to, whether there was a delay in approaching
this Court as well.
8. List the matter on 21.01.2022.
9. The Registry will furnish a report to this Court, as indicated
above."
2. We had refrained from passing a final order in the writ petition on the
previous date of hearing, as we wanted to satisfy ourselves as to whether or
not there was any delay in the petitioner approaching this Court.
W.P.(C) 631/2022 3/6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:24.01.2022
14:19:49
2.1. We have received the report from the Registry, which reads as under:
" 18.01.2022
Reference order dated 11.1.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Court
wherein registry has been directed to submit a report as to when the
Writ Petition has been filed, in the first instance.
In this regard, it is submitted that the writ petition was filed at the
first instance on ordinary side on 26.04.2019 vide diary no.
211540/2019. The said petition was scrutinized by the dealing
assistant on 29.04.2019 and returned to the counsel as there were
some objections. The petition was never re-filed with the same
diary number.
The counsel had filed a fresh writ petition with the same parties
name on 18.02.2021 through e-filing on ordinary side. Thereafter,
the petition was allowed on 1.3.2021 to be listed on urgent side, but
as there were some objections, the petition was returned to the
counsel on the same day for removal of the objections. The matter
was re-filed on 15.11.2021 after a gap of 8 months but the
objections were still not removed hence returned again. The matter
was re-filed on 21.12.2021 with the old reference number and the
registry had raised the objection for allowing the matter again as
the old reference number had elapsed as the matter had been filed
after a gap of 8 months.
The matter was re-filed again on 22.12.2021 after getting the
matter allowed with the new reference number but the objection
was still pending regarding filing better copies of dim annexures.
The matter was finally passed for 11.1.2022 after removal of the
objection regarding dim annexures by the counsel.
Report submitted.
s/d/-
AOJ (Filing)"
W.P.(C) 631/2022 4/6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:24.01.2022
14:19:49
3. As is evident from a perusal of the report submitted by the Registry,
the petitioner had approached the Court by way of a writ petition, in the first
instance, on 26.04.2019.
3.1. The petition was returned to the counsel as it had defects. The
petitioner instituted a fresh writ petition i.e., the instant writ petition, only on
18.02.2021.
3.2. However, this writ petition also contained defects; which were
flagged by the Registry. The petitioner, thereafter, took eight months to
remove the objections and re-filed the petition on 15.11.2021.
3.3. Since defects were noticed even after re-filing, the petition was
returned by the Registry. It was re-filed only on 21.12.2021.
3.4. It appears that there were, once again, some defects noted, which led
to the petitioner re-filing the petition on 22.12.2021, albeit with certain
objections which had not been cured.
3.5. The petition was finally cleared by the Registry only on 11.01.2022.
3.6. As is evident from above, the petitioner sat over his case between
26.04.2019 and 15.11.2021, and took his own time to clear the defects.
4. Today, Mr Goel says that he wishes to file additional documents
which would explain the delay. Concededly, these documents were neither
filed before the Tribunal nor with the instant writ petition, despite several re-
filings before this court.
5. According to us, given the foregoing circumstances, this writ petition
W.P.(C) 631/2022 5/6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:24.01.2022
14:19:49
cannot be entertained. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
TALWANT SINGH, J
JANUARY 21, 2022/rb
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
W.P.(C) 631/2022 6/6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:24.01.2022
14:19:49
