Delhi High Court
Swati Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors. on 28 February, 2024
Author: Tushar Rao Gedela
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 14.02.2024
Judgment pronounced on: 28.02.2024
+ W.P.(C) 8851/2019, CM APPL.36538/2019 & 39597/2019
SWATI GUPTA AND ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. A.K. Singla, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Rahul Shukla, Mr Akshit
Sachdeva, Ms. Sayantani Basak
and Ms. Snigdha, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Mr. Mukesh
Kr Tiwari and Ms. Reba Jena
Mishra, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing
Counsel (GNCTD) with Mr. N.K.
Singh, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik,
Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish
Sehrawat, Advocates
+ W.P.(C) 9619/2019 & CM APPL. 39670/2019
MADHULIKA & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. A.K. Singla, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Rahul Shukla, Mr Akshit
Sachdeva, Ms. Sayantani Basak
and Ms. Snigdha, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sushil Kr Pandey, SPC and
Ms. Neha Yadav, Advocate for
UOI.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR W.P.(C) 8851/2019 & connected matters Page 1 of 11
Signing Date:01.03.2024
15:35:14
Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing
Counsel (GNCTD) with Mr. N.K.
Singh, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik,
Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish
Sehrawat, Advocates
+ W.P.(C) 3096/2020, CM APPL.5093/2021, CM APPL.
23375/2021, CM APPL. 26842/2021, CM APPL. 11006/2022,
CM APPL. 15496/2022, CM APPL. 4321/2023 & CM APPL.
33235/2023
BHARAT ARYA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. A.K. Singla, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Rahul Shukla, Mr Akshit
Sachdeva, Ms. Sayantani Basak
and Ms. Snigdha, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC for UOI
with Mr. Kamal Digpaul and Ms.
Ishita Pathak, Advocates.
Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing
Counsel (GNCTD) with Mr. N.K.
Singh, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik,
Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish
Sehrawat, Advocates
+ W.P.(C) 3115/2020, CM APPL. 17531/2020, CM APPL.
5050/2021, CM APPL. 22837/2021, CM APPL. 26921/2021,
CM APPL. 11007/2022, CM APPL. 15943/2022, CM APPL.
4311/2023 & CM APPL. 33470/2023
VANDANA SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. A.K. Singla, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Rahul Shukla, Mr Akshit
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR W.P.(C) 8851/2019 & connected matters Page 2 of 11
Signing Date:01.03.2024
15:35:14
Sachdeva, Ms. Sayantani Basak
and Ms. Snigdha, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh and
Ms. Usha Jamal, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing
Counsel (GNCTD) with Mr. N.K.
Singh, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik,
Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish
Sehrawat, Advocates
+ W.P.(C) 8143/2020, CM APPL. 26426/2020, CM APPL.
5229/2021, CM APPL. 11563/2022, CM APPL. 16167/2022 &
CM APPL. 33457/2023
SWATI GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. A.K. Singla, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Rahul Shukla, Mr Akshit
Sachdeva, Ms. Sayantani Basak
and Ms. Snigdha, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sushil Kr Pandey, SPC and
Ms. Neha Yadav, Advocate for
UOI.
Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing
Counsel (GNCTD) with Mr. N.K.
Singh, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik,
Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish
Sehrawat, Advocates
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR W.P.(C) 8851/2019 & connected matters Page 3 of 11
Signing Date:01.03.2024
15:35:14
+ W.P.(C) 8144/2020, CM APPL. 26428/2020, CM APPL.
5108/2021, CM APPL. 11717/2022, CM APPL. 16426/2022,
CM APPL. 4315/2023 & CM APPL. 33559/2023
MADHULIKA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. A.K. Singla, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Rahul Shukla, Mr Akshit
Sachdeva, Ms. Sayantani Basak
and Ms. Snigdha, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Mr. Mukesh
Kr Tiwari and Ms. Reba Jena
Mishra, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing
Counsel (GNCTD) with Mr. N.K.
Singh, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik,
Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish
Sehrawat, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]
1. These are writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs:-
W.P.(C) 8851/2019
"In the circumstances aforesaid, it is prayed that the
Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus
directing respondent No.1 to release/disburse funds to
respondent no.2 and 3 as per PIP submitted for FY 2019-20
towards salaries/attending benefits attached to petitioners
in service of Respondent no. 3 and
Hon'ble Court may also pass such further order(s)
considered just fit, proper and expedient in the facts and
circumstances of the present case."
W.P.(C) 9619/2019
"(i) Quashment of Respondent No.1 Communication No.
F.No. 10(26)/2019-NHM-I/FTS-3202207 dated 12/07/2019
addressed to Respondent no.2;
(ii) Directing Respondent No. 1 to issue clarification /
corrigendum on its ROP dated 05.03.2019 made on
respondent No. 3's PIP dated 28.01.2019 pertaining to year
2019-2020 by dealing with Respondent No.2 and 3
representations dated 19.03.2019, 03.04.2019 and
13.05.2019
such writ(s), direction(s) or order(s) considered just fit,
proper and expedient in the circumstances of the case."
W.P.(C) 3096/2020
"In the circumstances aforesaid, petitioner prays for issue
of appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
writ, direction or order in favour of petitioner and against
the respondents be ordered to be issued thereby:
(a) declaring that petitioner's engagement in post of
Laboratory Assistant in respondent No. 4's project in view
of engagement terms, respondent No. 1 and 4 statement is a
"contract for service", to subsists and continue until
continuation of above programme by respondent no. 1 and
act, actions of respondent no. 3 in reading the same as
"contract appointment on deputation terms" is against law
and records, and as such would neither bind petitioner nor
affects petitioner's continuance in employment of
respondent no.4.
(b) ordering quashment of respondent no. 3's minutes of
meeting dated 02-01-2020 (Annexure-M) as illegal, ill-
founded based on misconstrued and misreading of record of
petitioner's engagement terms.
(c) ordering quashment of respondent no.4's email
communication dated 31-03-2020 (Annexure-L) as
respondent no. 3's office order dated 30-03-2020
(Annexure- L) has no application to working /
implementation of respondent no. 4's programme.
(d) ordering quashment of respondent No. 3's order dated
21-04-2020 (Annexure-P) as illegal, arbitrary, invalid and
perverse.
(e) Pass any such other writ(s), order(s) or direction(s)
considered just fit, proper and expedient in the facts and
circumstances or the case."
W.P.(C) 3115/2020
"In the circumstances aforesaid, petitioner prays for issue
of appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
writ, direction or order in favour of petitioner and against
the respondents be ordered to be issued thereby:
(a) declaring that petitioner's engagement in post of
Laboratory Technician in respondent No. 4's project in
view of engagement terms, respondent No. 1 and 4
statement is a "contract for service", to subsists and
continue until continuation of above programme by
respondent no. 1 and act, actions of respondent no. 3 in
reading the same as "contract appointment on deputation
terms" is against law and records, and as such would
neither bind petitioner nor affects petitioner's continuance
in employment of respondent no.4.
(b) ordering quashment of respondent no. 3's minutes of
meeting dated 02-01-2020 (Annexure-M) as illegal, ill-
founded based on misconstrued and misreading of record of
petitioner's engagement terms.
(c) ordering quashment of respondent no.4's email
communication dated 31-03-2020 (Annexure-L) as
respondent no. 3's office order dated 30-03-2020
(Annexure- L) has no application to working /
implementation of respondent no. 4's programme.
(d) ordering quashment of respondent No. 3's order dated
21-04-2020 (Annexure-P) as illegal, arbitrary, invalid and
perverse.
(e) Pass any such other writ(s), order(s) or direction(s)
considered just fit, proper and expedient in the facts and
circumstances or the case."
W.P.(C) 8143/2020
"In the circumstances aforesaid and to secure ends of
justice, it is, prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to
issue appropriate writ(s), direction(s) or order(s) against
the respondents thereby ordering issue of:-
(i) Writ of mandamus directing respondents to accept
petitioner's employment in IDD cell run by respondent no.4
to continue and subsist till the continuance of said
programme instituted by respondent no.1 to overcome
iodine deficiency disorders.
(ii) Writ of mandamus directing respondents No.2 to 4 to
recognize and accept petitioner's employment in aforesaid
project at part with its (respondent no.2) regular employees
in accordance with respondent no.1 communication dated
03.02.2006.
(iii) Writ of mandamus directing respondents No.2 to 4 to
re-frame its PIPs (Programme Implementation Plan) 2018-
2019 onwards in regard to description of petitioner's
employment and salary, under respondent No.4 programme,
in consonance with PIPs framed and submitted with
respondent no.1 for release of their ROPs in previous years.
(iv) Writ of mandamus quashing respondent No. 2 to 4
action / order allowing TDS deducted in FY 2019-20
onwards in Form 16-A (under Rule 31(i) (b)] in place of
Form 16 under [Rule 31(i) (a)], the change resorted to
upon misreading of petitioner's employment status in
respondent no.4.
(v) Writ of mandamus directing respondent-Union of Inida
to re-frame its ROP (record of proceedings) from 2018-
2019 onwards on PIPs received by them from respondents
No.2 to 4 in consonance with its practice for years
preceding thereto i.e. 2017-2018.
(vi) Writ of mandamus ordering quashment of respondent
No.1's communication dated 12.07.2019 (Annexure: P-19)
as violative of petitioner's engagement terms and in
disregard to respondent No.1's own acts, actions and
orders approving release of funds uptil 2019-2020 onwards.
(vii) Hon'ble Court may also pass/issue any other writ(s),
order(s) or direction(s) considered just fit, proper and
expedient in the circumstances of the case."
W.P.(C) 8144/2020
"In the circumstances aforesaid and to secure ends of
justice, it is, prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to
issue appropriate writ(s), direction(s) or order(s) against
the respondents thereby ordering issue of:-
"In the circumstances aforesaid and to secure ends of
justice, it is, prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to
issue appropriate writ(s), direction(s) or order(s) against
the respondents thereby ordering issue of:-
(i) Writ of mandamus directing respondents to accept
petitioner's employment in IDD cell run by respondent no.4
to continue and subsist till the continuance of said
programme instituted by respondent no.1 to overcome
iodine deficiency disorders.
(ii) Writ of mandamus directing respondents No.2 to 4 to
recognize and accept petitioner's employment in aforesaid
project at part with its (respondent no.2) regular employees
in accordance with respondent no.1 communication dated
03.02.2006.
(iii) Writ of mandamus directing respondents No.2 to 4 to
re-frame its PIPs (Programme Implementation Plan) 2018-
2019 onwards in regard to description of petitioner's
employment and salary, under respondent No.4 programme,
in consonance with PIPs framed and submitted with
respondent no.1 for release of their ROPs in previous years.
(iv) Writ of mandamus quashing respondent No. 2 to 4
action / order allowing TDS deducted in FY 2019-20
onwards in Form 16-A (under Rule 31(i) (b)] in place of
Form 16 under [Rule 31(i) (a)], the change resorted to
upon misreading of petitioner's employment status in
respondent no.4.
(v) Writ of mandamus directing respondent-Union of Inida
to re-frame its ROP (record of proceedings) from 2018-
2019 onwards on PIPs received by them from respondents
No.2 to 4 in consonance with its practice for years
preceding thereto i.e. 2017-2018.
(vi) Writ of mandamus ordering quashment of respondent
No.1's communication dated 12.07.2019 (Annexure: P-19)
as violative of petitioner's engagement terms and in
disregard to respondent No.1's own acts, actions and
orders approving release of funds uptil 2019-2020 onwards.
(vii) Hon'ble Court may also pass/issue any other writ(s),
order(s) or direction(s) considered just fit, proper and
expedient in the circumstances of the case."
2. The batch of writ petitions was filed by the petitioners seeking the
aforesaid reliefs. Ms. Ahlawat, learned counsel for the respondents had
submitted that under the interim directions passed by this Court from
time to time, the petitioners were continued in their contractual service
and salaries were also being remitted.
3. Ms. Ahlawat, learned counsel refers to the order dated 03.10.2023
of the Delhi State Health Mission, National Iodine Deficiency Disorder
Control Programme whereby it is clearly mentioned that Iodine
deficiency is no more a public health issue in Delhi, so the National
Iodine Deficiency Disorder Control Programme under the DSHM is
discontinued in the Govt. of NCT of Delhi w.e.f. 03.10.2023. She
submits that the activities of the iodine deficiency prevention in Delhi
can be streamlined with the RCH programme under the administrative
control of Director, Family Welfare and no separate programme is
required in Delhi as mentioned in the order. On that basis, she submits
that the Project having come to a closure by a policy decision of the
government / competent authority, the need to continue to pay salaries to
the petitioners who are contractual employees, also ceases. She submits
that in any case the petitioners themselves sought their continuance till
the project continued and now once the project has achieved its aims, the
continuation is not desirable.
4. Mr. A. K. Singla, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that the prayers in the batch of writ petitions cannot
be stated to have become infructuous on the ground that directions by
this Court have already been complied with. Learned senior counsel
submits that so long as the project continues, the directions to pay
salaries to the petitioners from the funds received by the respondents,
shall also have to be continued.
5. This Court has heard the aforesaid submissions of learned senior
counsel as also learned counsel for the respondents and is of the
considered opinion that the continuation or closure of a Project is a
policy decision purely within the realm of the Business Rules and
Administrative Exigencies of the Government and as such whether a
project is required to be continued or not, keeping in view the data
indicating fulfillment of such objective, is not for the Court to decide
unless there is a mala fide in such closure. No mala fide is averred nor
can this Court discern from either the pleadings or the order dated
03.10.2023.
6. Thus, the prayers which have been sought in the aforesaid batch of
writ petitions, seeking continuation of their contractual employment or
salaries and other incidental reliefs, cannot be countenanced having
regard to the closure of the Project. Moreover, the petitioners have
already challenged the order dated 03.10.2023 referred to above in a
separate and substantive petition bearing W.P (C) No. 13727 of 2023 and
as such the prayers sought in present batch of petitions have become
redundant. The detailed arguments of learned senior counsel in the
aforesaid writ have been heard and judgement passed thereon alongwith
the present batch of petitions.
7. In view of the aforesaid, the present batch of petitions have
become infructuous and are dismissed as such along with all the pending
applications.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
FEBRUARY 28, 2024/ms
