Delhi High Court - Orders
State Trading Corporation Of India ... vs National Commission For Scheduled ... on 5 August, 2020
Author: Jyoti Singh
Bench: Jyoti Singh
$~A-15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C) 4811/2020
STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED
..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath & Mr. Harshit
Singh, Advocates
versus
NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. P. Venkatesan, Advocate for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
ORDER
% 05.08.2020 Hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing. CM APPL. 17379/2020 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.
CM APPL. 17380/2020 This Application has been filed seeking exemption from filing duly attested Affidavits and requisite Court fee. Application is disposed of with a direction to the Applicant to file the same within 72 hours from the date of resumption of regular functioning of the Court. W.P. (C) 4811/2020 & CM APPL. 17378/2020 Petitioner herein is aggrieved by the Order dated 09.03.2020 passed by Respondent No. 1, wherein Respondent No. 1 has given directions/ recommended to the Secretary, Department of Commerce, Government of India to forthwith ensure cancellation of the CRS of the Respondent No.2 and accord him fast track promotions in the MM Cadre w.e.f. 01.07.2000, as CMM as on 01.07.2003 and as GM as on 01.07.2005, with all consequential and financial benefits.
Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath Learned Counsel for Petitioner submits that Respondent No. 1 has no jurisdiction whatsoever to deal with service matters of employees of the Petitioner. Mr. Nath relies on a judgement of this Court in W.P.(C) 521/2018 titled Maharaja Agrasen College & Anr. vs. Narendra Kumar & Ors. decided on 26.03.2019, wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that National Commission for Scheduled Castes does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate service matters. Relevant part of the judgement is as under:
"7. The controversy involved in the case is, ex facie, a service matter. It is now a settled position that the NCSC does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate service matters. The Supreme Court in All India Indian Overseas Bank SC & ST Employees Welfare Association and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.: 1996 Supp(8) SCR 295 had examined the powers of the NCSC and had held that although the NCSC has certain powers of a Court, it was not a Court and thus would not adjudicate disputes. The said view was also followed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court in Union of India v. National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Anr.: W.P.(C) 2390/2012 decided on 28.05.2014 and Delhi Transport Corporation v. Manohar Lal and Anr.: W.P.(C) 1613/2013 decided on 16.02.2016. This court had also considered the powers of the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes under Article 338A of the Constitution of India, which is similarly worded as Article 338 of the Constitution of India.
8. The learned counsel for NCSC submits that the impugned order is only a recommendation and is not an order. The said contention is unpersuasive as the plain reading of the operative part of the impugned order indicates that the petitioner has been called upon to submit an action taken report. Clearly, NCSC is insisting on the implementation of its recommendations. Even, otherwise the tenor of the impugned order clearly indicates that it is an order although couched as a recommendation, it is in substance, an order."
Mr. Nath further submits that the claims made by Respondent No. 2 before Respondent No. 1 were relating to promotions dating back to the year 2000 and onwards, and therefore, were barred by delay and laches. He further submits that Respondent No. 2 had all this while not raised any grievance with respect to the alleged delay in his promotions and has accepted them from time to time without any protest, demur or raising any grievance or challenge, in any Court.
Learned Counsel further points out that the order impugned herein passed by National Commission for Scheduled Castes, was challenged in this Court by Mr. Arvind Kadyan and Mr. Rajiv Chopra, against whom Respondent No. 1 had issued directions for registration of FIRs. This Court has on 02.06.2020 issued Notice in the two Petitions, being W.P.(C) 3319/2020 and W.P.(C) 3320/2020 and stayed the operation of the Impugned Order to the extent of recommendation of initiation of the process for registration of FIRs against the Petitioners therein.
Issue Notice.
Mr. P. Venkatesan Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 accepts notice and submits that he needs six weeks to file Reply.
Reply be filed within six weeks from today. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.
Notice be issued to Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 returnable on 20 th October, 2020.
Petitioner is at liberty to serve Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 through electronic mode.
Till the next date of hearing, operation of the Impugned Order dated 09.03.2020, to the extent it has directed the Secretary, Department of Commerce, Government of India to take steps for cancellation of the CRS of the Petitioner and accord him fast track promotion, shall remain stayed.
List this petition on 20th October, 2020 when connected Writ Petitions being W.P.(C) 3319/2020 and 3320/2020, laying challenge to the same Order are listed before this Court.
JYOTI SINGH, J AUGUST 05, 2020 rd