Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Jagdish And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 8 November, 2006
ORDER N.D. Dayal, Member (A)
1. Applicants in OA No. 949/2004 have filed MA Nos. 1327/2006 and 1328/2006 seeking to correct the father's name of applicant No. 2 in the memo of parties as Sat Pal instead of Sant Lal and to add the title 'Prasad' with the name of applicant No. 1 in the memo of parties, and take the same on record.
2. It is observed that the applicants had filed OA No. 949/2004 which was disposed of on 1.12.2004, whereafter a writ petition filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was dismissed thereby confirming the order of this Tribunal which has become final. The applicants have stated that initially a contempt petition was filed wherein two months' time was granted to implement the directions of the Tribunal, but aggrieved by non-implementation, another contempt petition was instituted and during the course of hearing an order dated 25.5.2006 of compliance was submitted whereby the applicants were brought on the regular establishment appointing them as Mate. In this background, the second contempt petition was dropped by order dated 26.5.2006. However, the applicants are aggrieved that when they reported for duty immediately thereafter on 29.5.2006 and submitted requisite documents as required by the respondents, they were orally informed of the discrepancy in the name of the applicant No. 2's father and in the name of applicant No. 1 respectively and asked to get it corrected from Court before appointment is given by way of assigning duty.
3. The respondents have filed counter reply to both the MAs. It is submitted that the applicants have been ordered to be transferred to the regular establishment of Delhi Milk Scheme in terms of the orders dated 25.5.2006 passed as annexed at MA-2 to both the MAs. It has, however, been stated that the name of applicant No. 2's father in OA No. 949/2004 has been shown as Sant Lal but in the certificate at Annexure R-I his father's name is shown as Satyapal Singh, therefore, he could not be given appointment letter and allowed to join duty. Similarly, in the case of applicant No. 1, it is stated that his name in OA No. 949/2004 has been shown as Jagdish but in the certificate at Annexure R-I, his name has been shown as Jagdish Prasad, because of which he could be neither issued appointment letter nor allowed to join duty.
4. It is further argued by the respondents that the issue involved is a disputed question of facts which needs adjudication before the appropriate forum and not before this Tribunal. Therefore, MA is not maintainable nor is it the proper remedy for settlement of such a matter, as the judgment has been passed on the basis of the facts placed on record by the parties.
5. A perusal of the order dated 25.5.2006 passed by the respondents in compliance of the Tribunal's judgment dated 1.12.2004 in OA No. 949/2004 (C.P. No. 431/2005) shows the names of applicants as per the memo of parties. The order states that they are transferred to the regular establishment of Delhi Milk Scheme as Mate in the pay scale of Rs. 2650-4000 with immediate effect. It is clarified that the transfer is provisional and their regular appointment will be subject to the conditions specified therein, which relate to their posting, probation, medical check-up, verification of character, eligibility criteria, etc. It is, however, stated that they would be paid pay and allowances from the date of their transfer to the regular establishment as Mate.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for both sides. It has been contended by the counsel for the applicants that as per the documents produced by them along with the OA, their personal details in the memo of parties need to be corrected as prayed for so that the objection raised by the respondents may be overcome and they may actually get the benefit granted to them by the Court. It has been pleaded that the mistake in names in the memo of parties has occurred due to inadvertence on the part of the counsel who was representing the applicants. It is pointed out that correction is particularly necessary in the memo of parties in the second C.P. No. 431/2005 decided on 26.5.2006, and they should not be deprived of the benefit when it is only a question of typographical mistake.
7. The counsel for the respondents submitted that such a matter of disputed facts requires confirmation by an appropriate Civil Court before the respondents could accept the plea of the applicants. It is explained that in terms of the order dated 25.5.2006 at MA-2 while going though the documents/testimonials produced by the applicants, the discrepancies were noticed, which is why the respondents stayed their hand in taking further steps in this regard.
8. It is seen that applicant No. 1 has submitted copy of ration card indicating members of family; certificates from Numberdar and Sarpanch; and copy of Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi Secondary Examination, 1997, which indicate that his full name is Jagdish Prasad son of Shri Rang Rao. On the other hand, applicant No. 2 has submitted copy of election card which shows his father's name as Satpal Singh. A copy of the election card of his father has also been enclosed which shows his name as Satya Pal. A copy of CGHS card shows applicant's name and indicates name of Sat Pal above the whole family. Copy of ID card of Delhi Milk Scheme in respect of Choudhry Satpal Singh has also been produced. He has further given copy of ration card showing his name at Sl. No. 5 and the name Satpal at Sl. No. 1. Copy of driving licence relating to Delhi issued in the name of applicant No. 2 shows his father's name as Satpal Singh and the identity of Satpal Singh is sought to be established also by a copy of his own driving licence relating to Delhi. Copy of death certificate of Shri Satpal Singh is also enclosed.
9. It is noticeable that in their counter reply the validity and genuineness of these documents has neither been discussed nor disputed by the respondents. Even during the hearing of this matter, no dispute was raised with regard to the same. Significantly, it is not the case of the respondents that the order dated 25.5.2006 issued by them is not in favour of the present applicants who preferred application/petition before the Tribunal/Hon'ble High Court and in whose favour the orders were passed by the Tribunal and confirmed in appeal. Evidently, the identity of the applicants has not been questioned by them at any stage during the entire period of litigation. It is also not the case of the respondents that the applicants who produced documents/testimonials in response to order dated 25.5.2006 are imposters and not the same individuals in whose favour orders dated 25.5.2006 were issued. Here, the question appears to be confined only to the correct name of applicant No. 1 and correct father's name of applicant No. 2 in view of the documents/testimonials produced by them, which indicate difference particularly with reference to the entries in the memo of parties. A perusal of the absentee statements at Sl. 13 to 20 of the counter reply filed by the respondents in OA No. 949/2004 shows that at Sl. 16 and 19, the name of applicant No. 2's father has been recorded as Sant Pal Singh and not Sant Lal by the respondents themselves. As such, it is not open to them to bring up the discrepancy in name at this stage of actual extension of benefit to applicant No. 2 by alleging disputed facts. This revelation has similar implications for the case of applicant No. 1 as well.
10. It is true that both the CPs were dropped by the Tribunal and if there are disputed facts, the Court would not normally interfere. However, it is difficult to turn a Nelson's eye to the fact that order dated 25.5.2006 came to be issued only after petition before the Hon'ble High Court was dismissed and two CPs were filed. This order was in fact issued only after the second CP was taken up by the Tribunal. However, this objection has been raised within three to four days thereafter on the grounds of difference in name as above, but without expressing any doubts as to the identity of the applicants themselves that they were not the persons in whose favour benefit was given by Court and compliance order issued by the respondents. The Government is expected to be a model employer which is fair and just in its dealings with employees, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Management of M.S. Nally Bharat Engineering Co. Limited v. State of Bihar .
11. The counsel for the applicants has submitted that under Rule 24 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, the Tribunal may intervene to make such orders or give such directions as necessary to give effect to its order or to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice. I am of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to invoke the Rule. Clearly, the respondents have already, by participating in the litigation over the years, acquiesced in the identity of the applicants and having raised no objection in that regard all this while, it is not open to them now to deprive the applicants particularly when their own records submitted earlier in Court show different names, as noticed above. In this background, the mistake seems to be inadvertent and I do not consider that correction to the memo of parties is a condition precedent to the grant of benefit to the applicants in furtherance of the order dated 25.5.2006 passed by the respondents by doubting that they are the same persons who had sought and were granted relief by the Court merely because of the discrepancy in name which has been noted earlier also as mentioned above specifically in the case of applicant No. 2 and its projection now only serves to circumvent the mandate of the court.
12. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the respondents are directed to take steps further to the order dated 25.5.2006 passed in consequence of the directions of the Court extending benefit to the applicants. It would be open to the respondents to take into account the evidence produced by the applicants and make enquiries as necessary to decide upon the correct names for purposes of record.
13. The MAs having been converted into applications under Rule 24 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, are disposed of as above. No costs.