Delhi High Court
Indian Council Of Medical Research vs Sh. Vipin Kumar & Anr. on 25 November, 2024
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
$~78
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 16185/2024, CM APPL. 68057/2024 & CM APPL.
68058/2024
INDIAN COUNCIL OF MEDICAL
RESEARCH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Saket Sikri, Mr. Ajay Pal
Singh Kullar, Mr. Vikalp Mudgal, Mr. Arun
Sanwal and Mr. Vignesh Raj T., Advs.
versus
SH. VIPIN KUMAR & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Respondent 1 in person
Mr. Umang Chopra, SPC with Mr. Karan
Malhotra, Advs. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 25.11.2024
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This writ petition assails an interim order dated 9 May 2024
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench1 in
OA 1942/2024 (Vipin Kumar v ICMR).
2. Mr. Sikri, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that there
are two errors in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The first
error, according to Mr. Sikri, is in the following observation in para 8
"the Tribunal" hereinafter
of the impugned order:
"It is not in dispute that applicant was initially engaged on
08.04.2010 and he has been continued, may be under different
projects and with different designation. It is not disputed by the
respondents in their counter reply that other projects are available
under them and under such projects the applicant can be considered
against the work/post in accordance with his qualification,
eligibility and experience."
(Emphasis supplied)
3. Mr. Sikri submits that there is no concession, by the petitioner,
in the counter reply filed before the Tribunal, to the effect that the
petitioner had any other projects available with them in which the
respondent could be considered in accordance with his qualification,
eligibility and experience.
4. The second error, according to Mr. Sikri, is in observation, in
para 10, that, in the counter reply filed by the petitioner, as the
respondent before the Tribunal, "it is not even disputed that the post
and/or the work against which the applicant has been working for
more than fourteen years is not available with the respondents".
5. Apropos the second error, as per Mr. Sikri, the fact that there is
no availability of any post on which the respondent can be
accommodated has specifically been asserted in para 3 of the counter
reply filed before the Tribunal.
6. The respondent is present in person. Mr. Umang Chopra,
learned SPC, represents the Union of India/Respondent 2.
7. Inasmuch as the plea of the petitioner is that there are errors in
the order passed by the Tribunal, we request the learned Tribunal to
reconsider the impugned order dated 9 May 2024, after hearing the
parties on the above aspect. We make it clear that the contentions
with the ICMR would be restricted to the aspect of whether the
aforesaid two errors exist in the impugned order. We do not express
any final opinion on that aspect.
8. In the event that the Tribunal finds that these two
findings/observations are actually not correct, it would be for the
Tribunal to take a view as to whether the decision to grant interim
relief requires to be reconsidered, or maintained.
9. Leaving all these aspects open for consideration before the
Tribunal, this writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
10. It is stated before us that the respondent has filed a contempt
petition before the Tribunal.
11. Till the Tribunal takes a de novo decision in the matter, the
contempt petition would not be pressed.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
NOVEMBER 25, 2024/dsn
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
