Delhi High Court
Ministry Of Finance Through Secretary vs Shri Shahid Meezan on 19 May, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~100
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 19.05.2025
+ W.P.(C) 4768/2025
MINISTRY OF FINANCE THROUGH SECRETARY
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Himanshu Pathak, SPC
versus
SHRI SHAHID MEEZAN .....Respondent
Through: Mr.S. M. Arif and Ms.Shabnam
Perween, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 30513/2025
1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 15 days in
filling the additional affidavit is condoned.
2. The application is allowed.
3. The additional affidavit is taken on record.
W.P.(C) 4768/2025 & CM APPL. 21967/2025
4. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the
Order dated 09.10.2019 passed by the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as,
'Tribunal') in O.A. No.3434/2015, titled Shri Shahid Meezan v.
Ministry of Finance through Secretary, by which the learned
Tribunal has allowed the O.A. filed by the respondent herein with the
following directions:
"17. We, therefore, allow the OA and set
aside the impugned Notification dated
15.04.2015. It is left open to the respondents to
take further steps, in accordance with law, as
indicated in the show cause notice dated
14.06.2011. In case there exists an
application, made by the applicant for VRS,
the same shall be considered on its own
merits.
18. We make it clear that the result of the
QA does not, by itself, lead to an obligation on
the part of the respondents to pay any salary
to the applicant for any period, ever since he
was on foreign deputation.
There shall be no order as to the costs."
5. At the outset, we note that this petition has been filed with huge
delay. The petitioner has now filed an additional affidavit dated
15.05.2025, explaining this delay.
6. Keeping in view the peculiar facts of the present case and the
Order that we propose to pass, we need not go further on this issue of
delay.
7. The petitioners are mainly aggrieved of the finding of the
learned Tribunal, whereby it has held that there cannot be a deemed
resignation of a government employee and Clause 11 of the Office
Memorandum dated 29.02.2008 cannot be invoked by the petitioner.
For reaching the said conclusion, the learned Tribunal placed reliance
on the Order dated 18.01.2019 passed in O.A. No.1631/2017, titled
Vijay Kumar Tivedi v. Union of India and Anr..
8. As far as the aforementioned Order is concerned, the same was
challenged before this Court by way of a Writ Petition, being W.P.(C)
7531/2019, titled Union of India & Anr. v. Sh. Vijay Kumar Trivedi.
The same was partially allowed by this Court vide its Judgment dated
14.09.2022, holding therein that the DoPT Guidelines, including
Clause 11 of the O.M. dated 29.02.2008, shall govern the conditions
of service for foreign service officers on deputation abroad. The only
relief granted to the respondent therein was that the order of deemed
resignation shall be effective from the date on which the Order is
passed, that is, 04.02.2016, and not retrospectively, which was sought
to be given in the said case from 01.04.2014.
9. Though a Special Leave Petition, being SLP (C) No.1194/2023,
titled Vijay Kumar Trivedi vs. Union of India, has been filed
thereagainst before the Supreme Court, there is no stay on the
operation of the said Judgment. Pertinently, the petitioners therein
have accepted the said judgment and have not challenged the same.
10. Keeping in view the above, the present petition is disposed of
by only clarifying that the question of law on the applicability of O.M.
dated 29.02.2008 shall be governed by the judgement of this Court in
Vijay Kumar Trivedi (supra), subject to the outcome of the SLP filed
against the same. The direction issued by the learned Tribunal,
however, shall continue to operate and shall be given effect to. We
only clarify that in case the application of the respondent for claiming
Voluntary Retirement from Service (VRS) is rejected by the petitioner
for any reason, it shall be open to the respondent to challenge the same
in accordance with law and subject to such challenge, in that event,
the Impugned Notification dated 15.04.2015, treating the respondent
to have deemed to have resigned from service, shall take effect from
the date of the said Notification and not retrospectively.
11. The petition along with the pending application is disposed of in
the above terms.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
RENU BHATNAGAR, J
MAY 19, 2025/sg/ik
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
