Union Of India And Ors. vs Mahinder Singh
2023 Latest Caselaw 3890 Del

                          *          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                               %                               Date of decision: September 25, 2023

                          +         W.P.(C) 2552/2020, CM APPL. 8898/2020

                          (16) UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                   ..... Petitioners
                                               Through: Mr. Shoumendu Mukherji, SPC with
                                                        Ms. Megha Sharma, Ms. Akanksha
                                                        Gupta and Mr. Ashish Singh,
                                                        Adv. for UOI
                                        versus

                                    MAHINDER SINGH                          ..... Respondent
                                                 Through: Mr. A.K. Trivedi, Adv.
                                   CORAM:
                                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
                                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA

                          V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)

1. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated April 9, 2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi ('Tribunal', for short) whereby the Tribunal has allowed the OA filed by the respondent herein namely Mahender Singh, by stating in paragraphs 14, 15 & 16 as under:

"

14. It is not denied by the respondents that the order dated 22.05.2015 was in consequence of the decision dated 10.12.2010 of the Tribunal in which the applicant was also a party. If the respondents had completed the selection process immediately after the written test conducted on 20.06.2013 (when the applicant was in service) the applicant would have automatically got the benefits of regularisation w.e.f.

01.01.1986 and actual benefits given to other similarly situated persons w.e.f. the date of filing the OA i.e. 16.08.2009. The applicant successfully undertook the written examination

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DHARMENDER SINGH W.P.(C) 2552/2020 Page 1 Signing Date:29.09.2023 12:15:50 alongwith other people who were subsequently placed in the select panel. It has been stated by the applicant in the rejoinder that the so called essential training programme of two months is more of a formality. In view of the fact that the applicant had been working on this post since 1983, till his superannuation, the lack of this two months training, in our view, cannot be a substantial ground for denying regularisation to the applicant, alongwith other junior and similarly situated persons.

15. The contention of the applicant is that similarly situated persons have been given regularisation, depending upon their date of engagement. These benefits pertain to the period when the applicant was very much in service. Hence, we feel that his right to be considered for grant of similar benefit is justified since he was otherwise eligible for it on all accounts.

16. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, the OA is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.05.2015 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for regularisation to the post of SOM alongwith juniors and similarly situated persons as per law with all the consequential benefits etc."

2. The OA was filed by the respondent before the Tribunal challenging an order dated May 22, 2015 whereby the petitioner No.2 had denied the respondent his regularization on the ground that he retired on July 31, 2014, whereas some junior and similarly situated persons to him have been regularized.

3. The facts as noted by the Tribunal are that the respondent was appointed as Khalasi with the petitioners. He was appointed to the post of Sub-Overseer Mistry ('SOM', for short) on ad hoc basis w.e.f April 2, 1983. He finally retired from the post of SOM (now JE) on superannuation on July 31, 2014. In the year 2009, respondent and other similarly situated persons filed two OAs being 2938/2009 and

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DHARMENDER SINGH W.P.(C) 2552/2020 Page 2 Signing Date:29.09.2023 12:15:50 2533/2009 before the Principal Bench, New Delhi for considering the case of regularization by way of appointment / promotion to the post of SOM. The OAs were disposed of on December 10, 2010 with directions to the petitioners to consider the representations of the applicants in the OAs including the respondent by passing a reasoned and speaking order keeping in view the Railway circulars and judicial pronouncements on the subject.

4. In the year 2013, the petitioners held a written examination for regularisation of the services of the respondent and similarly situated persons. Petitioner No.2 declared the result of the selection after nearly two years vide their impugned order dated May 22, 2015. They issued a panel of 9 persons regularising them on the post of SOM. The name of the respondent was not considered, since he had retired from Railway Service on July 31, 2014 which is a date prior to the date of issue of order dated May 22, 2015. Vide order dated July 6, 2015, the petitioners directed that junior and similarly situated persons will be regularized from the date of working as SOM, but for those working prior to January 1, 1986 benefits will be given from January 1, 1986 with actual benefits from the date of filing of the OA, i.e., on August 16, 2009.

5. The respondent submitted his representation against order dated July 6, 2015 stating that he should be given the same benefits as have been given to similarly situated persons and that he cannot be denied those benefits merely because he has retired during the pendency of the selection process. Both the representations remained unanswered. The respondent has relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DHARMENDER SINGH W.P.(C) 2552/2020 Page 3 Signing Date:29.09.2023 12:15:50 case of Dwarka Prasad v. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 5332 of 1997.

6. The petitioners did not dispute the factual position as narrated above. Their case before the Tribunal was that the order of regularization can be implemented only after pre-promotional training imparted to the candidates by Civil Engineering Training Academy, Kanpur. The training was imparted between September 14, 2015 and November 14, 2015. As the respondent could not undergo the training since he had retired prior to the training he was not entitled to any relief as sought before the Tribunal.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated the submissions made by the petitioners before the Tribunal, i.e., since the respondent had not undergone the training, he is not entitled to the relief as sought for before the Tribunal.

8. Suffice to state, we are not in agreement with the said submission made by the counsel for the petitioners. We agree with the findings of the Tribunal as reproduced above. Additionally, it may be stated here that the examination was held in the year 2013 and the result could only be declared in 2015. The delay is sought to be justified by the petitioners that too for implementing the order of the Tribunal dated December 10, 2010 by stating that it required detailed consultation / discussion / correspondence. In fact no correspondence in that regard has been placed. Even otherwise the order passed by the Tribunal in the year 2010 could not have taken 5 years for the petitioners to implement the same. Prejudice has been caused to the respondent as in the

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DHARMENDER SINGH W.P.(C) 2552/2020 Page 4 Signing Date:29.09.2023 12:15:50 meantime in the year 2014, he stood retired. The effect of the same is drastic resulting in loss of wages and also pensionary benefits.

9. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent having not undergone pre-promotional training, he shall not be entitled for any relief. We are not in agreement with such a plea as well for the reason that the training for him would be inconsequential as such a training would become relevant only for the purpose of the working as SOM. But the fact remains that he had retired in the year 2014 and could not have actually utilized the training in his working. So in that sense, the plea taken by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed. In the conspectus of the facts which fell for consideration, we are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in allowing the OA.

10. We do not see any merit in the petition. The same is dismissed. CM APPL. 8898/2020 Dismissed as infructuous.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J

SEPTEMBER 25, 2023/jg

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DHARMENDER SINGH W.P.(C) 2552/2020 Page 5 Signing Date:29.09.2023 12:15:50