Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Janardan Sharma vs Gnct Of Delhi, Through: Its Chief ... on 26 July, 2021

Author: Rajiv Shakdher

Bench: Rajiv Shakdher, Talwant Singh

                          $~13(2021)
                          *        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +        W.P.(C) 6998/2021
                                   JANARDAN SHARMA                                     ..... Petitioner
                                                      Through:      Mr. Varun Mudgal, Adv.

                                                  versus
                                   GNCT OF DELHI, THROUGH: ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS.
                                                                             ..... Respondents
                                                  Through: Ms. Vibha Mahajan, Adv.
                                   CORAM:
                                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
                                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
                                            ORDER

% 26.07.2021 [Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19] CM No.22090/2021

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 6998/2021

2. The petitioner, who was engaged as a vocational part-time banking teacher by the respondents, vide order dated 26.11.1991, retired from Rani Jhansi Govt. Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, Railway Colony, Tughlakabad, New Delhi, on 26.03.2020.

2.1. The petitioner has been involved in three rounds of litigation in the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal'). In the first round, the petitioner, via an original application i.e. OA No. 1025/1996, sought regularization of service. The petitioner's first foray with the Tribunal did not meet with success, and consequently, the aforementioned petition was dismissed on 02.08.2000.

2.2. However, a perusal of the said order of the Tribunal would show that, the respondents had indicated to the Tribunal that they had sanctioned posts lying vacant with them.

2.3. The impression given, according to Mr. Varun Mudgal, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, was that, the services of the persons, who were similarly circumstanced as the petitioner, would be regularized, along with the petitioner and that they would be appointed against the sanctioned posts. 2.4. Mr. Mudgal says that, since no steps were taken towards regularization of service by the respondents, it impelled the petitioner to make a second attempt via O.A. No.942/2020. This O.A. was dismissed as well on 25.09.2020.

2.5. The petitioner, thereafter, approached this Court by way of a writ petition against the aforementioned order dated 25.09.2020, which was withdrawn with liberty to approach the Tribunal by way of a review application. The review application was dismissed by the Tribunal on 07.07.2021.

2.6. Mr. Mudgal, in support of his plea, that persons such as the petitioner, who were engaged for a long period of time without regularization, ought to have been accorded pensionary benefits, places reliance on paragraph 36 of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Prem Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 516, in which, a reference is made to the earlier Constitution Bench's judgment rendered in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi & Ors. 2006 (4) SCC 1.

3. Issue notice.

3.1 Ms. Vibha Mahajan accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

3.2. Counter-affidavit will be filed within four weeks from today. Rejoinder thereto, if any, will be filed before the next date of hearing.

4. List the matter on 28.09.2021.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J TALWANT SINGH, J JULY 26, 2021/pmc Click here to check corrigendum, if any W.P.(C) 6998/2021 3/3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:28.07.2021 13:24:56