Delhi High Court
Varun Yadav vs Department Of Women And Child ... on 4 October, 2024
Author: C.Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar, Sudhir Kumar Jain
$~48
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 773/2023, CM APPL. 61658/2023
VARUN YADAV .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Manik Ahluwalia, Adv.
versus
DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD
DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF NCT OF
DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC with
Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Laavanya
Kaushik, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish
Sehrawat, Advs. for GNCTD
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
O R D E R (ORAL)
% 04.10.2024
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge
relegates the appellant to the learned Central Administrative Tribunal,
following the judgment of the seven-Judge Bench of the Supreme
Court in L. Chandra Kumar v UOI1.
2. The prayer clause in the writ petition read thus:
(1997) 3 SCC 261
"1. The petitioner vide the present petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeks the following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction thereby quashing the Impugned
Order dated July 21, 2023 issued by Respondent No. 1;
b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction thereby directing renewal of the
contract of the Petitioner and reinstatement of the services
of the Petitioner with Respondent No.1;
c) award the costs of the present petition in favour of
the Petitioners and against the Respondents, and
d) grant such other or further relief(s) in favour of the
Petitioners and against the Respondents as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
3. The order dated 21 July 2023, which was under challenge in the
writ petition, read thus:
"ORDER
Whereas, Sh. Varun Yadav was engaged as District Child
Protection Officer on contract basis in State Child Protection
Society, Department of Women and Child Development in the year
of 2017.
Whereas, contract engagement of Mr. Varun Yadav has been
extended from time to time and the last extension was valid till 30-
June-2023. Whereas, a Committee was constituted by the
Department to review the performance of all DCPOs as they have
been working with the department for the past many years and
were expected to be well versed with their roles and
responsibilities for effective implementation of Mission Vatsalaya
Scheme and provisions of Juvenile Justice Act to provide service
of care and protection to children in Delhi.
Whereas, in order to review performance of all DCPOs, a written
test was conducted on 22.06.23 followed by personal interaction of
the DCPOs with the said Committee. Whereas, Sh. Varun Yadav
did not appear in the test as he was out of station from 20.06.23 to
26.06.23 without sanction of any leave from the Reporting Officer.
Whereas, Sh. Varun Yadav was called for an individual interaction
on 30.06.23, where the Committee found him to be casual,
unmannerly and rigid in his approach. Hence, based on his
appraisal report, Individual interaction and as per the
recommendation of the District Officer, the committee did not
recommend for further extension of Sh. Varun Yadav.
Whereas, it is also mentioned in the contract of engagement that
the Member Secretary, State Child Protection Society, reserves the
right to cancel/discontinue the contractual engagement at any time
without any prior notice.
Therefore, in view of recommendation of the committee, it has
been decided that the contract of Sh. Varun Yadav, District Child
Protection Officer, shall not be extended beyond 21.07.2023.
Consequently, the aforesaid contract stands completed on
21.07.2023."
4. The dispute, therefore, pertains to the service of the petitioner
with the State Child Protection Society under the Department of
Women and Child Development. It is a dispute which squarely falls
within the scope of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985.
5. That being so, no exception can be taken to the decision of the
learned Single Judge to relegate the appellant to the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal, given the law enunciated in L. Chandra
Kumar. We may note that this bench has considered this aspect in
detail in its recent decision in Parikshit Grewal v Union of India &
Anr2.
6. The appeal is, therefore, bereft of merit and is accordingly
Judgment dated 27 September 2024 in LPA 971/2024
dismissed.
7. Needless to say, the liberty granted by the learned Single Judge
to the appellant to approach the Tribunal in accordance with law
would continue to remain undisturbed.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.
OCTOBER 4, 2024/aky
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
