Delhi High Court
Anis Ahmed vs Government Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 14 October, 2024
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar, Sudhir Kumar Jain
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1215/2024
ANIS AHMED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pawan Kumar Dhiman,
Adv.
versus
GOVERNMENT NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing
Counsel, GNCTD with Mr. Nitesh Kumar
Singh, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik, Ms. Aliza
Alam and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
JUDGMENT(ORAL)
% 14.10.2024
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal reads thus:
"Perusal of the order sheets indicates that there has been no
representation on behalf of either of the parties on the past several
dates of listing. We are informed that Mr. Kapil Agnihotri, whose
name is reflected in the causelists as the counsel for the
respondents is no longer on the panel of GNCTD. Perhaps that
explains the repeated non representation. In the circumstances, Mr.
Amit Anand, learned advocate, who is on the panel of GNCTD and
is present in Court, is called upon to appear and take notice of the
proceedings in this O.A.
2. The applicant by virtue of the present O.A has sought the
following relief(s):-
"(i) call for the records.
(ii) direct the respondents to re-employ the applicant
forthwith.
(iii) direct respondent to pay full salary of the post of
principal to the applicant with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f.
1.4.2019 w.e.f. 01.04.2019 till his re- employment/attained
the age of 62 years, in light-of the principles of law laid
down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in aforementioned
WPC No.2448/2016 [A/6].
(iv) allow the OA with cost.
(v) pass such other and further orders which this
Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the existing facts
and circumstances of the case."
3. The applicant, who has appeared in person, has stated that
his advocate has become hostile and, therefore, he would like to
argue the matter himself. He makes certain wide-ranging
allegations against the respondents and submits that the re-
employment scheme is marred with irregularities and an honest
person like him has been denied appointment.
4. While we take note of these statements, we are of the
opinion that with the passage of time the relief being sought for has
become redundant rendering this O.A. infructuous. Moreover, his
prayer is that he should be given re-employment till the age of 62
as per the scheme. Admittedly, he has crossed that age by now.
5. In view of the position stated above, the O.A. stands
dismissed as having become infructuous.
6. There shall be no order as to costs."
2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant before the
Tribunal is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
3. We are of the opinion that, while the learned Tribunal is correct
in observing that prayer (ii) in the OA had become infructuous with
the passage of time, as the petitioner had attained the age of
superannuation, prayer (iii) was required to be considered and decided
on merits.
4. The learned Tribunal was clearly in error in holding that the
entire OA had become infructuous with the passage of time.
5. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 17 July
2023 and remand the matter to the learned Tribunal to take a decision
on prayer (iii) in the OA after hearing both sides in accordance with
law as expeditiously as possible.
6. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.
OCTOBER 14, 2024/N
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
