Delhi High Court
Umed Singh (Through Wife) And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 7 January, 2022
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 07.01.2022
+ W.P.(C) 330/2022
UMED SINGH (THROUGH WIFE) AND ORS. ......Petitioners
Through : Mr A.K. Trivedi, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ......Respondents
Through : Mr J.K. Singh, Adv.
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. This is a writ petition directed against the order dated 14.10.2019,
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [in short 'the Tribunal'] in
O.A. No.92/2018.
2. Mr A.K. Trivedi, who appears on behalf of the petitioners, on being
queried, could not furnish even one good reason as to why the petitioners
had not approached the Court up-until now.
3. Briefly, the grievance articulated by the petitioners, both before the
Tribunal and this Court, is that they were entitled to overtime allowance
beyond 8 hours of work per day.
3.1. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, has noted that the petitioners
have worked at 'C' category Gates.
3.2. Furthermore, the Tribunal has also noted that out of the 15 applicants
who were present before it, only 7 applicants had been provided residential
facility within 0.5 km of the subject Gate.
3.3. The Tribunal, thus, in line with its earlier order dated 13.09.2019,
Signature Not Verified
By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:12.01.2022
17:25:04
passed in O.A.No.1433/2018 wherein similar issues had obtained, disposed
of the subject O.A. in terms of the following operative directions:
"....7. This Tribunal is of the considered view that present case is
squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of this Bench and
accordingly since the respondents have admitted in para 4.5 of
their counter affidavit that except the aforesaid seven applicants
(applicant nos.2, 3 5, 9 10, 11 and 13), none of other applicants
were provided the residential quarter within 0.5 Km. Therefore,
the applicants, except applicant nos.2, 3, 5, 9 10, 11 and 13, are
permitted to submit their representation individually giving the
details of their residence and place of their duty within 30 days
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.
Thereafter respondents will consider the same and pass a
reasoned and speaking order keeping in view the rule position and
instructions on the subject, within a period of 60 days from the
date of receipt of such representations from the remaining eight
applicants and make payments for OTA, if found due, within 45
days thereon...."
4. Mr Trivedi concedes that the petitioners have not made a
representation, in terms of the directions issued by the Tribunal in its order
dated 14.10.2019.
4.1 Furthermore, Mr Trivedi says that the petitioners, in fact, manned
gates of Category 'A' and 'B' and not Category 'C', as is noted in the
impugned order.
5. At this juncture, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition for
more than one reason :
5.1 Firstly, there is no explanation for the delay in approaching the Court.
5.2 Secondly, although an opportunity was given to the petitioners to
make a representation within the stipulated timeframe, as provided in
paragraph 7 of the impugned order, no such representation has been made.
Signature Not Verified
By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:12.01.2022
17:25:04
5.3 Lastly, the petitioners have raised a point as to the category of gates
manned by them; an aspect that was not brought to the notice of the
Tribunal.
6. The writ petition is, accordingly, closed. However, the petitioners, if
they so choose, will be free to make a representation to the respondents, who
shall examine the matter as per law.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
TALWANT SINGH, J
JANUARY 7, 2022
aj
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:12.01.2022
17:25:04
