Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Samander Singh vs M/O Urban Development on 26 July, 2024
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
(1) OA No. 3279/2018
MA No. 395/2020
MA No. 580/2020
With
(2) OA No. 3426/2018
(3) OA No. 3425/2018
(4) OA No. 3465/2018
(5) OA No. 3477/2018
MA No. 666/2020
(6) OA No. 3462/2018
(7) OA No. 3424/2018
MA No. 672/2020
(8) OA No. 3423/2018
(9) OA No. 3420/2018
(10) OA No. 3419/2018
MA No. 678/2020
(11) OA No. 3403/2018
MA No. 336/2020
(12) OA No. 3339/2018
MA No. 677/2020
(13) OA No. 3333/2018
MA No. 684/2020
(14) OA No. 3341/2018
(15) OA No. 3340/2018
1
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
(16) OA No. 3402/2018
MA No. 679/2020
(17) OA No. 3398/2018
MA No. 670/2020
(18) OA No. 3604/2018
(19) OA No. 3521/2018
(20) OA No. 3507/2018
MA No. 682/2020
(21) OA No. 3334/2018
(22) OA No. 3416/2018
MA No. 665/2020
(23) OA No. 3455/2018
(24) OA No. 3449/2018
(25) OA No. 3438/2018
MA No. 669/2020
(26) OA No. 3437/2018
MA No. 676/2020
(27) OA No. 3436/2018
MA No. 673/2020
(28) OA No. 3435/2018
MA No. 674/2020
(29) OA No. 3433/2018
MA No. 680/2020
(30) OA No. 3432/2018
MA No. 671/2020
(31) OA No. 3434/2018
MA No. 668/2020
2
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
(32) OA No. 3428/2018
MA No. 667/2020
(33) OA No. 3479/2018
MA No. 681/2020
(34) OA No. 3480/2018
MA No. 683/2020
(35) OA No. 3493/2018
(36) OA No. 3492/2018
(37) OA No. 3486/2018
(38) OA No. 3484/2018
(39) OA No. 3481/2018
(40) OA No. 3352/2018
MA No. 675/2020
This the 26th day of July, 2024
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
1. O.A. No. 3279/2018
MA No. 395/2020
MA No. 580/2020
Krishan Kumar
Aged about 39 years,
S/o Shri Mishri Lal
R/o 5L/23A, NIT,
Faridabad, Haryana
(Working as Offset Machine Attendant)
.......Applicant
(By Advocate : Shri S.K. Gupta with Sh. Udit Gupta,
Sh. Sanket Gupta, Sh. Anand Awasthi and Sh.
Shankar Divate)
3
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
Versus
Union of India through
1. Secretary,
Ministry of Housing & Urban
Affairs, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi.
2. The Director, Directorate of
Printing, B-Wing, Nirman
Bhawan, New Delhi -
110011.
3. The Manager,
Govt. of India Press, Minto
Road, New Delhi.
Respondents
(By Advocate : Shri Subhash Gosain, Shri Umang
Dixit for Sh. Hanu Bhaskar)
2. O.A. No. 3426/2018
Ashmi Baby
D/o Shri C.C. Baby
R/o L-18, First Floor,
Sector-84, Park Elite Floors,
Greater Faridabad, Haryana-121002
Aged about 38 years
(Group 'C')
(Assistant Binder) ... Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri S.K. Gupta with Sh. Udit Gupta, Sh. Sanket Gupta, Sh.
Anand Awasthi and Sh. Shankar Divate)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs,
(Govt. of India Press)
NIT Faridabad-121001.
2. Director,
Director of Printing, Govt. of India Press,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
4
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
3. The Manager,
Govt. of India Press, Minto Road,
New Delhi-110002. .. Respondents
(By Advocate : Shri Ranjan Tyagi)
3. O.A. No.3425/2018
Lakshman
S/o Shri Ram Swarup
R/o Garhi Patti Hodal Teh. Hodal
Distt. Palwat (Haryana)-121106.
Aged about 37 years
(Group 'C')
(Assistant Binder) ............................................... Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri S.K. Gupta with Sh. Udit Gupta, Sh. Sanket Gupta, Sh.
Anand Awasthi and Sh. Shankar Divate)
Versus
1. Union of India Through
its Secretary,
Ministry of Housing & Urban
Affairs, (Govt. of India Press)
NIT Faridabad-121001.
2. Director,
Director of Printing, Govt. of
India Press, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001.
3. The Manager,
Govt. of India Press,
Minto Road,
New Delhi-110002. .. Respondents
(By Advocate : Shri Ranjan Tyagi, Shri Gyanendra Singh with Sh.
Ranjan Tiwari, Sh. Bijendra Singh, Ms. Ritu Singh, Sh. Virendra
Kumar, Sh. Satish Kumar Vashistha, Sh. B.R. Sharma and Sh.
Mohinder Singh)
4. O.A. No. 3465/2018
Deepak Arora
S/o Sh. Dharampal Arora
5
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
R/o House No. 97, Sec-18,
Housing Board Colony,
Faridabad-121002.
Aged about 32 years
(Group 'C')
(Assistant Binder) ......................................................... Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri S.K. Gupta with Sh. Udit Gupta, Sh. Sanket Gupta, Sh.
Anand Awasthi and Sh. Shankar Divate)
Versus
1. Union of India Through
its Secretary,
Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs
(Govt. of India Press)
N.I.T. Faridabad-121001.
2. Director
Director of Printing,
Govt. of India Press
Nirman Bhawan New
Delhi-110001.
3. The Manager, Govt.
of India Press
Minto Road, New Delhi-110002................................ Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Ranjan Tyagi with Sh. Udit Gupta,
Sh. Sanket Gupta, Sh. Anand Awasthi and Sh. Shankar
Divate)
5. O.A. No. 3477/2018
MA No. 666/2020
Omkar, Age about 37 years), Group-'C'
S/o Sh. Chandra Lal
R/o VPO Kaurali, Tehsil-Ballabghar,
Distt. Faridabad.
Working as "Asstt. Halwai cum Cook" ............................. Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. S.K. Gupta with Sh. Udit Gupta, Sh. Sanket Gupta, Sh.
Anand Awasthi and Sh. Shankar Divate)
Versus
Through Union of India
1. Secretary
Ministry of Urban Development Nirman
Bhawan, New Delhi-110011.
6
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
2. Director
Director of Printing,
Ministry of Urban Development
"B"Wing, Nirman Bhawan
New Delhi.110011.
3. Manager,
Govt. of India Press
Minto Road, New Delhi-110002................................ Respondents
(By Advocate: Dr. Ch. Shamshuddin Khan)
6. O.A. No. 3462/2018
Manoj Satija
S/o Sh. Subhash Satija
R/o H. No. 3G/46, N.I.T. Faridabad,
Haryana-121002.
Aged about 36 years
(Group 'C')
(Assistant Binder) ................................................................. Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri S.K. Gupta with Sh. Udit Gupta, Sh. Sanket Gupta, Sh.
Anand Awasthi and Sh. Shankar Divate)
Versus
1. Union of India Through
its Secretary,
Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs
(Govt. of India Press)
N.I.T. Faridabad-121001.
2. Director
Director of Printing,
Govt. of India Press
Nirman Bhawan New
Delhi-110001.
3. The Manager, Govt.
of India Press
Minto Road, New Delhi-110002. -Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Ranjan Tyagi)
7
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
7. O.A. No.3424/2018, MA No. 672/2020
Vijay Singh (Age about 35 years),
Group 'C'
S/o Shri Gaya Prasad,
R/o A-25, Dabua Colony, Faridabad
Working as Canteen Attendant. ............................................ Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri S.K. Gupta with Sh. Udit Gupta, Sh. Sanket Gupta, Sh.
Anand Awasthi and Sh. Shankar Divate)
Versus
Through Union of India
1. Secretary,
Ministry of Urban Development,
Norman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110011.
2. Director,
Directorate of Printing,
Ministry of Urban Development,
"B" Wing, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110011.
3. Manager,
Govt. of India Press,
Monto Road,
New Delhi-110002. .. Respondents
(By Advocate : Dr. Ch. Shamsuddin Khan)
8. O.A. No.3423/2018
Parveen (Age about 33 years),
Group 'C'
S/o Shri Hari Ram
R/o H.No.420, Vill Bhatola,
Distt. Faridabad
Working as Clerk Coupen. .......................................... Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri S.K. Gupta with Sh. Udit Gupta, Sh. Sanket Gupta, Sh.
Anand Awasthi and Sh. Shankar Divate)
Versus
8
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
Through Union of India
1. Secretary,
Ministry of Urban Development,
Norman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110011.
2. Director,
Directorate of Printing,
Ministry of Urban Development, "B"
Wing, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110011.
3. Manager,
Govt. of India Press,
Monto Road,
New Delhi-110002. .. Respondents
(By Advocate : Sh. A.K. Singh)
9. O.A. No.3420/2018
Shri Himanshu Sharma
S/o Shri Satish Chander
Aged 34 years
Working as Assistant Binder, (Group-C),
Under Govt. of India Press,
Minto Road,
New Delhi-110002. ........................................ Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri S.K. Gupta with Sh. Udit Gupta, Sh. Sanket Gupta, Sh.
Anand Awasthi and Sh. Shankar Divate)
Versus
Union of India & Others : through
1. The Secretary,
Ministry of Urban Development &
9
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
Poverty Alleviation,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001.
2. The Director,
Directorate of Printing,
Govt. of India Press,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001.
3. The Manager,
Govt. of India Press,
Minto Road,
New Delhi-110002. .. Respondents
(By Advocate : Dr. Ch. Shamsuddin Khan)
10. O.A. No.3419/2018, MA No. 678/2020
1. Krishan Chand, (Age about 37 years),
Group-C,
S/o Late Shri Jhargad Lal,
R/o H.No.B-105, New Press Colony,
Faridabad
Working as Peon.
2. Omkar, (Aged about 34 years),
Group-C,
S/o Shri Hukam Singh
R/o Vill & PO-Fatehpur Billoch,
Tehsil Ballabhgarh, Faridabad
Working as Peon.
3. Anil Kumar, (Aged about 36 years),
Group-C,
S/o Shri Siri Bhagwan
R/o 50/PA Guatam Colony,
Narela, Delhi-40
Working as Peon.
4. Wazir Singh (Aged about 33 years),
Group-C,
S/o Shri Rambhaj,
R/o B-122, New Press Colony, NIT, Faridabad,
Working as Peon.
10
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
5. Rajender Prabodh Xess (Age about 36 years),
Group 'C',
S/o Shri Egness Xess,
R/o H.No.A-475, Minto Road, Complex,
New Delhi-02
Working as Peon.
6. Dhawan Geera (Age about 33 years),
Group-C,
S/o Shri Vad Parkash
R/o 2F/67, NIT, Faridabad,
Working as Peon.
7. Kunwar Pal (Age about 34 years),
S/o Shri Fakeer Chand
R/o H.No.678, Nangla Enclave, Part-II, Faridbad
Working as Peon.
8. Parveen (Age about 32 years),
Group-C,
S/o Late Shri Vinod Kumar,
R/o Dabua Colony, Faridabad,
Working as Peon. ............................................ Applicants
(By Advocate: Shri S.K. Gupta with Sh. Udit Gupta, Sh. Sanket Gupta, Sh.
Anand Awasthi and Sh. Shankar Divate)
Versus
Through Union of India
1. Secretary,
Ministry of Urban Development
Norman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110011.
2. Director,
Directorate of Printing,
Ministry of Urban Development,
"B" Wing,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110011.
3. Manager,
Govt. of India Press,
Monto Road,
New Delhi-110002. .. Respondents
(By Advocate : Dr. Ch. Shamshuddin Khan)
11
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
11. O.A. No.3403/2018, MA No. 336/2020
1. Shri Rakesh Kumar
(Group 'C')
Aged about 41 years
S/o Shri Hari Singh
R/o H.No. 1809, Jawahar Colony,
NIT, Faridabad, HR
(Working as Offset Machine Attendant)
2. Shri Sunil Yadav
(Group 'C')
Aged about 39 years
S/o Shri Abhey Singh
R/o 98-G, DIZ Area,
Sector-4, Gole Market,
New Delhi
(Working as Offset Machine Attendant)
3. Shri Pankaj Kumar
(Group-C),
Aged about 40 years,
S/o Shri Dharam Pal Tyagi,
R/o H.No.353, Burari Village,
Nr. Takiya Chowk, Delhi-110084
(Working as Offset Machine Attendant)
4. Shri Anil Kumar
(Group-C),
Aged about 39 years,
S/o Shri Mohan Singh,
R/o Village Agwanpur,
Post Office, Baghola,
Tehsil & Distt: Palwal
Haryana
(Working as Offset Machine Attendant)
5. Shri Vipin Kumar
(Group-C),
Aged about 39 years,
S/o Shri Manohar Lal,
R/o H.No.88. Sihi Gate,
Valmiki Basti, Ballabgarh,
Faridabad, HR
12
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
(Working as Offset Machine Attendant)
6. Shri Rishi Kumar
(Group-C),
Aged about 33 years,
S/o Shri Vijender Singh,
R/o H.No.485, Village Burari,
Nr. Takiya Chowk, Delhi-110084
(Working as Offset Machine Attendant)
7. Shri Anoop Kumar
(Group-C),
Aged about 35 years,
S/o Shri Ramvir Singh,
R/o B-156, Minto Road Complex,
Minto Road, New Delhi
(Working as Offset Machine Attendant) .....Applicants
(By Advocate: Shri S.K. Gupta with Sh. Udit Gupta, Sh.
Sanket Gupta, Sh. Anand Awasthi and Sh. Shankar Divate)
Versus
1. Secretary,
Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi.
2. The Director,
Directorate of Printing,
"B" Wing,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110011.
3. The Manager,
Govt. of India Press,
Monto Road,
New Delhi. .. Respondents
(By Advocate : Shri Ranjan Tyagi, Shri Subhash Gosain,
Dr. Ch. Shamshuddin Khan)
12. O.A. No. 3339/2018
MA No. 677/2020
1. Deepak (Age about 31 years)
Group-C
S/o Shri Tej Ram
R/o Vill-Bardola, PO-Tigaon
13
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
Teh-Ballabhgarh (Faridabad)
Working as Labourer, GIP Minto Road.
2. Dinesh Kumar (Age about 29 years)
Group-C
S/o Shri Subhash Chand
R/o H.No.172, Sonia Khawaja, Faridabad
Working as Labourer, GIP Minto Road.
3. Rakesh (Age about 40 years)
Group -C
S/o Shri Rampal
R/o Vill Fatehpur Chandila
Near Sec.21, Faridabad.
Working as Labourer, GIP Minto Road.
4. Kapil Bhatt (age about 32 years)
Group-C
S/o Ram Prakash
R/o Vill-Bhatpura, PO-Fatehpur Billoch
Teh. Ballabgarh, Faridabad
Working as Labourer, GIP Minto Road.
5. Devender Singh (Age about 33 years)
Group-C
S/o Shri Kutal Singh
R/o 1625 Jawahar Colony, Faridabad
Working as Labourer, GIP Minto Road.
6. Ram Avtar Meena (Age about 37 years)
Group-C
S/o Shri Narayan Lal Meena
R/o Vill-Khedla Gadali, PO-Routh Hidiya
Teh. Mohwa, Distt. Dausa, Rajasthan
Working as Labourer, GIP Minto Road.
7. Satish Kumar (Age about 33 years)
Group-C
S/o Shri Ganga Lal
R/o G-131, Old Press Colony Faridabad Working
as Labourer, GIP Minto Road.
8. Anil Kumar
(Age about 30 years)
Group-C
S/o Shri Phool Singh
14
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
R/o Badrola, PO Tigaon
Teh. Ballabgarh, Faridabad
Working as Labourer, GIP Minto Road.
9. Vijay Anand
(Age about 31 years)
Group C
S/o Shri Bharat Singh
R/o Vill-Daultabad
Near Sec.16 A, Faridabad
Working as Labourer, GIP Minto Road.
10. Ansul Kotnala (Age about 29 years)
Group C
S/o Shri Satya Prakash Kotnala
R/o 1574 Jawahar Colony, Faridabad
Working as Labourer, GIP Minto Road.
11. Virender Singh Rathore
(Age about 39 years)
Group C
S/o Shri Gaya Prasad
R/o 169 Dabua Colony, Faridabad
Working as Labourer, GIP Minto Road.
12. Rohit Kumar
(Age about 29 years)
Group C
S/o Shri Gopal
R/o Vill-Badoli, Faridabad
Working as Labourer, GIP Minto Road.
13. Jitender Sharma (Aged
about 35 years) Group
C
S/o Shri S.K.Sharma
R/o H.No.716, Sec.10, Faridabad
Working as Labourer, GIP Minto Road.
14. Sunil Kumar (Age about 34 years)
Group-C
S/o Shri Tara Chand
R/o Jeewan Nagar
Sec.55, Faridabad
Working as Labourer, GIP Minto Road.
15
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
15. Vikas (Age about 31 years)
Group C
S/o Shri Dharampal
R/o 239 Nangla Enclave, Part-I
Faridabad
Working as Labourer, GIP Minto Road.
16. Mahesh Kumar
(Age about 32 years)
Group-C
S/o Shri Lila Dhar
R/o Vill Jawan, Teh. Ballabgarh Faridabad
Working as Labourer, GIP Minto Road.
17. Sant Singh Huda
(Age about 34 years)
Group -C
S/o Shri Azad Singh
R/o VPO Dayalpur, Faridabad Working
as Labourer, GIP Minto Road.
18. Sunny Adi (H.H.)
(Age about 35 years)
Group -C
S/o Joginder Singh
R/o H.No.95
Aram Bagh New Delhi
Working as labourer, GIP Minto Road. ....Applicants
(By Advocate: Shri S.K. Gupta with Sh. Udit Gupta, Sh.
Sanket Gupta, Sh. Anand Awasthi and Sh. Shankar Divate)
Versus
Through Union of India
1. Secretary
Ministry of Urban Development
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110011.
2. Director
Directorate of Printing, Ministry
of Urban Development B-Wing,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110 011.
16
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
3. Manager
Govt. of India Press
Minto Road
New Delhi - 110 002. ...................................... Respondents
(By Advocate:Shri Subhash Gosain)
13. O.A. No. 3333/2018
MA No. 684/2020
1. Samander Singh
Aged about 34 years
S/o Shri Lila Ram
R/o Village Sotai, Fatehpur Billoch
Faridabad (HR) 121004
Working as Copy Holder
2. Savita Tomar
Aged about 36 years
D/o Mahender Pal Singh
R/o H.No.1751/2, Jawahar Colony
Faridabad (HR)
Working as Copy Holder
3. Anil Kumar
Aged about 33 years
S/o Shri Bali Ram
R/o Plot No.58, Sector-56 A
Faridabad
Working as Copy Holder
4. Sunita Bhati
Aged about 34 years
D/o Shri Rampal Singh
R/o H. No.E-755
Dabua Colony, Faridabad
Working as Copy Holder
5. Pallav Rahul
Aged about 33 years
S/o late Shri Ram Raji Paswan
R/o 2752 H,FF (First Floor)
Sector 49 Faridabad
Working as Copy Holder. ...Applicants
(By Advocate: Shri S.K. Gupta with Sh. Udit Gupta, Sh.
Sanket Gupta, Sh. Anand Awasthi and Sh. Shankar
Divate)
17
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
Versus
Through Union of India
1. Secretary
Ministry of Urban Development,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110 011.
2. Director
Directorate of Printing,
Ministry of Urban Development,
'B' Wing, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110 011.
3. Manager
Govt. of India Press,
Minto Road,
New Delhi - 110 002. ............................... Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Ranjan Tyagi)
14. O.A. No.3341/2018
Shri Satish Chand
S/o Shri Ramesh Chand
Aged 36 years
Working as Assistant Binder
Group-C
Under Govt. of India Press
Minto Road,
New Delhi - 110 002. .......................................Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri S.K. Gupta with Sh. Udit Gupta, Sh. Sanket Gupta,
Sh. Anand Awasthi and Sh. Shankar Divate)
Versus
Union of India & Ors.: through
1. The Secretary
Ministry of Urban Development &
Poverty Alleviation,
Nirman Bhawan, New
Delhi - 110 001.
18
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
2. The Director,
Directorate of Printing,
Govt. of India Press,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001.
3. The Manager,
Govt of India Press
Minto Road
New Delhi - 110 002. .............................Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Ranjan Tyagi)
15. O.A. No. 3340/2018
Shri Narender Kumar-II
S/o Late Shri Sudershan Kumar
Aged 36 year
Working as Assistant Binder (Group-C)
Under Govt. of India Press,
Minto Road,
New Delhi - 110 002. ...Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri S.K. Gupta with Sh. Udit Gupta,
Sh. Sanket Gupta, Sh. Anand Awasthi and Sh.
Shankar Divate)
Versus
Union of India & Ors. through
1. The Secretary
Ministry of Urban Development &
Poverty Alleviation,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Director,
Directorate of Printing,
Govt. of India Press,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001.
3. The Manager,
Govt of India Press,
Minto Road,
New Delhi - 110 002. .............................Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Ranjan Tyagi)
19
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
16. O.A. No. 3402/2018
MA No. 679/2020
Shri Dinesh Kumar
Group-C
Aged about 41 years
S/o Shri Mahipal Singh,
R/o 3146, Jawahar Colony,
NIT, Faridabad, HR
(Working as Asstt. Mechanic) ....Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri S.K. Gupta with Sh. Udit Gupta,
Sh. Sanket Gupta, Sh. Anand Awasthi and Sh.
Shankar Divate)
Versus
Union of India through
1. Secretary
Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Director
Directorate of Printing,
B Wing, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110 011.
3. The Manager,
Govt. of India Press,
Minto Road, New Delhi............................. Respondents
(By Advocate:Shri Subhash Gosain)
17. O.A. No. 3398/2018
MA No. 670/2020
Shri Mahendra Kumar
Group-C
Aged about 37 years,
S/o Shri Onar Singh,
R/o 5A/87, NIT, Faridabad (HR)
Working as Welder ..........................................Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri S.K. Gupta with Sh. Udit Gupta, Sh. Sanket Gupta,
Sh. Anand Awasthi and Sh. Shankar Divate)
Versus
20
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
Union of India through
1. Secretary
Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Director, Directorate
of Printing,
B Wing, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110 011.
3. The Manager,
Govt. of India Press,
Minto Road, New Delhi............................. Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri A.K. Singh)
18. O.A. No.3604/2018
Shri Pawan
S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad
Aged 41 years
Working as Assistant Binder
Group-C
Under Govt. of India Press,
Minto Road,
New Delhi - 110 002. .......................................Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri S.K. Gupta with Sh. Udit Gupta, Sh. Sanket Gupta,
Sh. Anand Awasthi and Sh. Shankar Divate)
Versus
Union of India & Ors. through
1. The Secretary
Ministry of Urban Development &
Poverty Alleviation,
Nirman Bhawan, New
Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Director,
Directorate of Printing,
Govt. of India Press,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001.
3. The Manager,
Govt of India Press,
21
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
Minto Road,
New Delhi - 110 002. .............................Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri A.K. Singh)
19. O.A. No. 3521/2018
Shri Surender Singh
Aged about 42 years
Carpenter-Group C
S/o Shri Dalip Singh
H.No. G-7, Old Press Colony,
NIT, Faridabad. ............................................... Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri S.K. Gupta with Sh. Udit Gupta, Sh. Sanket Gupta,
Sh. Anand Awasthi and Sh. Shankar Divate)
Versus
1. The Union of India through
The Secretary
Ministry of Urban Development,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Manager
Govt. of India Press,
Minto Road, New Delhi.
3. The Director (Printing)
Ministry of Urban Development
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
4. The Manager, Govt of India Press
Faridabad
NIIT, Faridabad. ............................ Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri A . K . S i ng h )
20. O.A. No. 3507/2018
MA No. 682/2020
1. Sanjeev Kumar (age about 36 years)
Group C
S/o Shri Om Prakash
R/o Vill. Teha, PO-Ganaur
Distt. Sonepat - Haryana
Working as 'Offset Machine Attendent'
22
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
2. Manoj Kumar
Aged about 38 years
Group C
S/o Shri Sube Singh
R/o E-35, Old Press Colony
NIT Faridabad - 121 001
Working as 'Offset Machine Attendent'
3. Yudhveer Singh
Aged about 37 years
Group-C
S/o Shri Nathi
R/o VPO Pali, Tehsil-Faridabad
Distt. Faridabad, Haryana
Working as 'Offset Machine Attendent'.
4. Ravinder Kumar
Aged about 37 years
Group-C
S/o Shri Sudershan Kumar
R/o H.No.2E-5
NIT Faridabad - 121001 (Haryana)
Working as 'Offset Machine Attendent'.
5. Rajender Kumar
Aged about 38 years
Group-C
S/o Shri Girdhari Lal
R/o G-91, Old Press Colony,
NIT Faridabad -121001 (Haryana)
Working as 'Offset Machine Attendent'.
6. Harinder Kumar
Aged about 36 years
Group C
S/o Shri Mahinder Nath Singh
R/o Jawahar Colony
NIT Faridabad - 121 001 (Haryana)
Working as 'Offset Machine Attendent'.
7. Kuldeep Singh
Aged about 36 years
Group C
S/o Shri Gopi Chand
R/o H.No.WW-11, Govt. of India Press
NIT Faridabad - 121001 (Haryana)
23
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
Working as 'Offset Machine Attendent'.
8. Bijender
Aged about 38 years,
Group-C,
S/o Shri Megh Shyam Singh
NIT Faridabad - 121 001 (Haryana)
Working as 'Offset Machine Attendent'. Applicants
(By Advocate: Shri S.K. Gupta with Sh. Udit Gupta, Sh.
Sanket Gupta, Sh. Anand Awasthi and Sh. Shankar Divate)
Versus
Through Union of India
1. Secretary
Ministry of Urban Development,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110 011.
2. Director,
Directorate of Printing,
Ministry of Urban Development,
'B' Wing, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110 011.
3. Manager,
Govt. of India Press,
Monto Road,
New Delhi - 110 002. .............................Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Subhash Gosain)
21. O.A. No. 3334/2018
1. Shri Shiv OM
S/o Shri Teeka Ram
Aged 39 years
Working as Asstt. Binder (Group-C)
Under Govt of India Press, Minto Road,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. Shri Raman Kumar
S/o Shri Ved Pal Singh
Aged 40 years
24
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
Working as Asstt. Binder (Group-C)
Under Govt of India Press, Minto Road,
New Delhi - 110 001.
3. Shri Damodar Singh S/o
Shri Keshav Chand
Aged 38 years
Working as Asstt. Binder (Group C) Under
Govt. of India Press, Minto Road
New Delhi - 110 001.
4. Shri Vijay Kumar-I
S/o Shri Ram Mehar Singh
Aged 38 years
Working as Asstt, Binder (Group -C)
Under Govt. of India Press, Minto Road,
New Delhi - 110 001.
5. Shri Raj Kumar
S/o Shri Gopal Sharan
Aged 37 years
Working as Asstt. Binder (Group C)
Under Govt. of India Press, Minto Road,
New Delhi - 110 001.
6. Shri Manoj Kumar
S/o Shri Jai Pal Singh
Aged 34 year
Working as Asstt. Binder (Group C),
Under Govt. of India Press, Minto Road,
New Delhi - 110 001.
7. Shri Girraj Singh
S/o Shri Narpat Singh
Aged 39 years
Working as Asstt. Binder (Group-C)
Under Govt. of India Press, Minto Road,
New Delhi - 110 001.
8. Shri Ajay Kumar
S/o Shri Vidhya Shanker
Aged 37 year
Working as Astt. Binder (Group C)
Under Govt. of India Press, Minto Road,
New Delhi - 110 001.
25
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
9. Shri Narender Kumar-I
S/o Shri Shyam Lal
Aged 41 year
Working as Astt. Binder (Group C)
Under Govt. of India Press, Minto Road,
New Delhi - 110 001.
10. Shri Mahesh Kapoor
S/o Shri K.N.Kapoor
Aged 41 year
Working as Asstt. Binder (Group C)
Under Govt. of India Press, Minto Road,
New Delhi - 110 001.
11. Shri Surender Singh
S/o Shri Jai Pal
Aged 40 years
Working as Asstt. Binder (Group C)
Under Govt. of India Press, Minto Road,
New Delhi - 110 001.
12. Shri Dheeraj Kukreti
S/o Shri Shiv Prasad Kukrati
Aged 39 year
Working as Asstt. Binder (Group C)
Under Govt. of India Press, Minto Road,
New Delhi - 110 001.
13. Shri Laxman-I
S/o Shri Sri Chand
Age 38
Working as Asstt Binder (Group C)
Under Govt. of India Press, Minto Road,
New Delhi - 110 001.
14. Shri Naveen Kumar
S/o Shri Jugal Kishore
Aged 35 year
Working as Asstt. Binder (Group C)
Under Govt of India Press, Minto Road,
New Delhi - 110 001.
15. Shri Tilak Raj
S/o Shri Nirman Sharma
Aged 37 year
Working as Asstt Binder (Group C)
26
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
Under Govt of India Press, Minto Road,
New Delhi - 110 001.
16. Shri Mahender Kumar
S/o Shri Chetan Singh
Aged 34 years
Working as Asstt. Binder (Group C)
Under Govt. of India Press, Minto Road,
New Delhi - 110 001.
17. Shri Ranveer Singh
S/o Shri Gaya Prasad
Aged 32 years
Working as Asstt. Binder (Group C)
Under Govt. of India Press, Minto Road,
New Delhi - 110 001.
18. Shri Mohan Singh
S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh
Aged 41 years
Working as Asstt. Binder (Group C)
Under Govt. of India Press, Minto Road,
New Delhi - 110 001.
19. Shri Banee Prasad Meena
S/o Shri Ram Khilari Meena
Aged 42 years
Working as Asstt. Binder (Group C)
Under Govt. of India Press, Minto Road,
New Delhi - 110 001.
20. Shri Mahesh Chand
S/o Shri Mauji Ram Piwal
Aged 40 years
Working as Asstt. Binder (Group C)
Under Govt. of India Press, Minto Road,
New Delhi - 110 001.
21. Shri Nitin Vaid
S/o Shri Darshan Lal Vaid
Aged 38 years
Working as Asstt. Binder (Group C)
Under Govt. of India Press, Minto Road,
New Delhi - 110 001.
27
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
22. Shri Vijay Kumar-II
S/o Shri Bani Singh
Aged 34 years
Working as Asstt. Binder (Group C)
Under Govt. of India Press, Minto Road
New Delhi - 110 001.
23. Shri Narveer Singh
S/o Shri Dhan Singh
Aged 38 years
Working as Asstt. Binder (Group C)
Under Govt. of India Press, Minto Road,
New Delhi - 110 001. ...Applicants
(By Advocate: Shri S.K. Gupta with Sh. Udit Gupta, Sh. Sanket Gupta,
Sh. Anand Awasthi and Sh. Shankar Divate)
Vs.
Union of India and Ors. :through
1. The Secretary,
Ministry of Urban Development,
Poverty Alleviation,
Nirman Bhawan, New
Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Director,
Directorate of Printing,
Govt. of India Press,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001.
3. The Manager,
Govt of India Press,
Minto Road,
New Delhi - 110 002.
4. The Manager,
Govt. of India Press,
Rashtrapati Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110 004.
5. The Manager,
Govt. of India Press,
Ring Road,
Mayapuri,
New Delhi-110064. ......................................Respondents
(By Advocate:Shri Subhash Gosain)
28
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
22. O.A. 3416/2018
MA No. 665/2020
1. Rakesh Kumar (Age about 35 years)
S/o Late Shri Bhup Singh,
R/o H.No. 1243-III,
N.H. IV, Faridabad
Working as Chowkidar, Group-C.
2. Madan Lal, (Age about 54 years)
S/o Shri Kaheyr Lal,
R/o H.No. 3254, Jawahar Colony,
Faridabad
Working as Chowkidar, Group-C.
3. Gobind (Age about 34 years)
S/o Late Shri Ganga Lal,
R/o 131, Old Press Colony,
Faridabad
Working as Chowkidar, Group-C.
4. Sushil Kumar(Age about 36 years)
S/o Shri Vidha Nand Tabe,
R/o Tabe-III/9, Press Colony,
Mayapuri, New Delhi
Working as Chowkidar, Group-C.
5. Gaurav Kumar Sharma,
(Age about 34 years)
S/o Shri Bhagwati Prashad, R/o
H.No. FCA-28, Faridabad
Working as Chowkidar, Group-C.
6. Rajesh Kumar (Age about 33 years)
S/o Shri Fakeer Chand,
R/o H.No. 678, Nangla Enclave Part-II, Faridabad
Working as Chowkidar, Group-C.
7. Satish Kumar (Age about 34 years)
S/o Shri Pritam Singh,
R/o Vill-Eshaki (Harchand Pur),
Sohna Gurgaon (Haryana) Working
as Chowkidar, Group-C.
29
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
8. Shispal (Age about 35 years)
S/o Shri Inder Raj Singh,
R/o MCF-257, Pram Nagar,
Vill-Ucha, Faridabad
Working as Chowkidar, Group-C.
9. Lakhwinder Singh(Age about 34 years)
S/o Shri Dilip Singh,
R/o B-57, NPC, Faridabad
Working as Chowkidar, Group-C.
(By Advocate : Shri S.K. Gupta with Sh. Udit Gupta, Sh. Sanket Gupta,
Sh. Anand Awasthi and Sh. Shankar Divate)
Versus
Union of India through
1. Secretary
Ministry of Urban Development
Nirman Bhawan
New Delhi - 110 011.
2. Director
Directorate of Printing
Ministry of Urban Development,
'B' Wing, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110 011.
3. Manager
Govt of India Press
Monto Road
New Delhi - 110 002. .. Respondents
(By Advocate : Dr. Ch. Shamsuddin Khan)
23. O.A. No.3455/2018
Rakesh
S/o Sh. Bhagmal
R/o V.P.O. Bhainsrawli,
The. Ballabhgarh, Distt. Faridabad,
Haryana-121101
Aged about 39 years.
(Group 'C')
(Assistant Binder) ......................................................... Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri S.K. Gupta with Sh. Udit Gupta, Sh. Sanket Gupta,
Sh. Anand Awasthi and Sh. Shankar Divate)
30
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
Versus
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs,
(Govt. of India Press)
N.I.T. Faridabad-121001
2. Director
Director of Printing,
Govt. of India Press,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001
3. The Manager
Govt. of India Press,
Minto Road,
New Delhi-110002 ..................................... Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Ranjan Tyagi)
24. O.A. No.3449/2018
Satpal Singh
S/o Sh. Jai Ram
House No. FCA-21, Shiv Harizan
Colony, Tigaon Road, Ballabhgar,
Faridabad
Presently posted at Minto Road,
Govt. of India Press, New Delhi.............................Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri S.K. Gupta with Sh. Udit Gupta, Sh. Sanket Gupta,
Sh. Anand Awasthi and Sh. Shankar Divate)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Urban Development,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001
2. The Director
Directorate of Printing,
Ministry of Urban Development,
'B' Wing, Nirman Bhawan,
31
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
New Delhi-110001.
3. The Manager
Govt. of India Press,
Minto Road,
New Delhi ............................................................. Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Hilal Haider,
Shri Subhash Gosain)
25. O.A. No.3438/2018
MA No. 669/2020
Shri Sonje Praveen Ashok
S/o Shri Ashok Ramachandra Sonje
Age about 35 years,
Assistant Artist Retoucherm,
Group-'C'
H.No. 979 Sector-8,
Faridabad-121006, Haryana ................................. Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri S.K. Gupta with Sh. Udit Gupta, Sh. Sanket Gupta,
Sh. Anand Awasthi and Sh. Shankar Divate)
Versus
1. The Union of India,
Through : The Secretary,
Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs,
(Govt. of India Press)
Central Secretariat, New Delhi
2. Director
Directorate of Printing, Wing
'B', Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi.
3. Manager
Govt. of India Press,
Faridabad, Haryana
4. Manager,
Govt. of India Press
Minto Road,
New Delhi .......................................................Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri A.K. Singh)
32
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
26. O.A. No.3437/2018
MA No. 676/2020
Shri Rajesh Maroti Kodwate
S/o Sh. Maroti Kodwate
Aged about 36 years.
Offset Machine Assistant,
Group 'C'
R/o H.No. 1192, Sainik Colony Sector-49,
Faridabad, Haryana ................................................... Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri S.K. Gupta with Sh. Udit Gupta, Sh. Sanket Gupta,
Sh. Anand Awasthi and Sh. Shankar Divate)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through : The Secretary,
Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs,
(Govt. of India Press)
Central Secretariat, New Delhi.
2. Director
Directorate of Printing,
'B' Wing, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001.
3. Manager,
Govt. of India Press,
Faridabad, Haryana.
4. Manager,
Govt. of India Press
Minto Road,
New Delhi ............................................................. Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Hilal Haider,
Subhash Gosain)
27. O.A. No.3436/2018
MA No. 673/2020
Shri Ashok Kumar
S/o Shri Gopal Prasad
Aged about 40 years,
Offset Machine Man,
Group 'C'
33
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
R/o Moh. Nagala Chandra Kund,
Village & Post Chhata
District - Mathura (U.P.) ..................................................... Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri S.K. Gupta with Sh. Udit Gupta, Sh. Sanket Gupta,
Sh. Anand Awasthi and Sh. Shankar Divate)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through : The Secretary,
Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs,
(Govt. of India Press)
Central Secretariat, New Delhi.
2. Director
Directorate of Printing,
'B' Wing, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001.
3. The Manager
Govt. of India Press,
Faridabad, Haryana
4. Manager,
Govt. of India Press
Minto Road,
New Delhi ............................................................. Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Hilal Haider)
28. O.A. No. 3435/2018
MA No. 674/2020
Shri Brij Nandand
S/o Shri Supher Ram
Aged about 41 years
DTP Operator,
Group 'C'
R/o F/6902, Sanjay Colony,
Near Sector-23,
N.I.T. Faridabad,
Haryana....................................................................... Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri S.K. Gupta with Sh. Udit Gupta, Sh. Sanket Gupta,
Sh. Anand Awasthi and Sh. Shankar Divate)
Versus
34
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
1. The Union of India
Through : The Secretary,
Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs,
(Govt. of India Press)
Central Secretariat, New Delhi.
2. Director,
Directorate of Printing,
Wing-B, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi.
3. Manager,
Govt. of India Press,
Faridabad, Haryana
4. Manager,
Govt. of India Press
Minto Road,
New Delhi ...........................................Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Subhash Gosain, Shri Gyanendra Singh with Sh.
Ranjan Tiwari, Sh. Bijendra Singh, Ms. Ritu Singh, Sh. Virendra Kumar,
Sh. Satish Kumar Vashistha, Sh. B.R. Sharma and Sh. Mohinder Singh)
29. O.A. No.3433/2018
MA No. 680/2020
Shri Imrat Lal Ahirwar
S/o Shri Pooran Lal Ahirwar
Aged about 42 years,
Offset Machine Man,
Group 'C'
R/o 2-A, 96B,
N.I.T. Faridabad,
Haryana.............................................................. Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri S.K. Gupta with Sh. Udit Gupta, Sh. Sanket Gupta,
Sh. Anand Awasthi and Sh. Shankar Divate)
Versus
1. The Union of India
Through : The Secretary,
Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs,
(Govt. of India Press)
Central Secretariat, New Delhi.
2. Director,
Directorate of Printing,
35
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
Wing 'B', Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001.
3. Manager
Govt. of India Press,
Faridabad, Haryana.
4. Manager,
Govt. of India Press
Minto Road,
New Delhi .................................................... Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Subhash Gosain, Shri Gyanendra
Singh with Sh. Ranjan Tiwari, Sh. Bijendra Singh, Ms.
Ritu Singh, Sh. Virendra Kumar, Sh. Satish Kumar
Vashistha, Sh. B.R. Sharma and Sh. Mohinder Singh)
30. O.A. No.3432/2018
MA No. 671/2020
Shri Satish Kumar
S/o Shri Hargovind Prasad Premi
Aged about 34 years,
Offset Machine Assistant,
Group-'C'
G1/98, Indira Enclave
Sector-21-D
Faridabad, Haryana ................................... Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri S.K. Gupta with Sh. Udit Gupta, Sh. Sanket Gupta,
Sh. Anand Awasthi and Sh. Shankar Divate)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through : The Secretary,
Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs,
(Govt. of India Press)
Central Secretariat, New Delhi
2. Director
Directorate of Printing,
'B' Wing, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001
3. Manager
Govt. of India Press,
Faridabad, Haryana
4. Manager,
Govt. of India Press
36
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
Minto Road,
New Delhi .................................................... Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Subhash Gosain, Shri Gyanendra
Singh with Sh. Ranjan Tiwari, Sh. Bijendra Singh,
Ms. Ritu Singh, Sh. Virendra Kumar, Sh. Satish
Kumar Vashistha, Sh. B.R. Sharma and Sh. Mohinder
Singh)
31. O.A. No. 3434/2018
MA No. 668/2020
Shri Tarun Bharti
S/o Shri Bhola Prasad
Aged about 37 years,
Offset Machine Man,
Group 'C'
R/o F/6900, Sanjay Colony,
Near Sector-23
N.I.T. Faridabad-121005,
Haryana.............................................................. Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri S.K. Gupta with Sh. Udit Gupta, Sh. Sanket Gupta,
Sh. Anand Awasthi and Sh. Shankar Divate)
Versus
1. The Union of India
Through : The Secretary,
Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs,
(Govt. of India Press)
Central Secretariat, New Delhi.
2. Director,
Directorate of Printing,
'B' Wing, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001
3. The Manager
Govt. of India Press,
Faridabad, Haryana
4. Manager,
Govt. of India Press
Minto Road,
New Delhi .......................................................Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Subhash Gosain, Shri Gyanendra Singh
with Sh. Ranjan Tiwari, Sh. Bijendra Singh, Ms. Ritu Singh,
Sh. Virendra Kumar, Sh. Satish Kumar Vashistha, Sh. B.R.
Sharma and Sh. Mohinder Singh)
37
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
32. O.A. No.3428/2018
MA No. 667/2020
1. Raj Singh, (Aged about 36 years), Group 'C'
S/o Sh. Dharamvir,
R/o Village-Fate Chandela,
Distt. Faridabad (HR)
Working as Safaiwala
2. Anil Kumar, (Aged about 33 years), Group 'C'
S/o Sh. Ram Kishan,
R/oVillage-Jihi, Bilpuki Mohalla
Sec-8, Faridabad (HR)
Working as Safaiwala
3. Indraj Singh, (Aged about 56 years), Group 'C'
S/o Sh. Harbhajan,
R/o Village- Nai Nangla, Post-Gupawal,
The. Palwal,
Distt. Faridabad (HR)
Working as Safaiwala
4. Hardayal Meena, (Aged about 38 years), Group 'C'
S/o Sh. Ram Prasad,
R/o Village & Post' Jatwada Vig,
Mandawar Malwa Road,
Distt. Dausa (Raj.)
Working as Safaiwala
5. Dalchand, (Aged about 50 years), Group 'C'
S/o Sh. Sohan Pal,
R/o Village & Post - Baropi, The Palwal,
Distt. Faridabad (HR)
Working as Safaiwala
6. Satvir, (Aged about 38 years), Group 'C'
S/o Sh. Kishan Lal,
R/o Village & Post-Ahaswar,
Tehsil Palwal,
Distt. Faridabad (HR)
Working as Safaiwala
7. Parveen, (Aged about 34 years), Group 'C'
S/o Sh. Bijender,
R/o Village- Shabbad, Post-Tigaon,
Distt. Faridabad (HR)
Working as Safaiwala.
8. Sanjay, (Aged about 36 years), Group 'C'
S/o Sh. Amar Singh,
R/o Village-Bhatola, Post-Basapi,
38
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
Tehsil & Distt. Faridabad (HR)
Working as Safaiwala ................................................. Applicants
(By Advocate: Shri S.K. Gupta with Sh. Udit Gupta, Sh. Sanket Gupta,
Sh. Anand Awasthi and Sh. Shankar Divate)
Versus
Through Union of India
1. Secretary,
Ministry of Urban Development,
Norman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110011.
2. Director,
Directorate of Printing, Ministry
of Urban Development 'B' Wing,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110011.
3. Manager,
Govt. of India Press
Minto Road,
New Delhi-110002 .......................... Respondents
(By Advocate: Dr. Ch. Shamshuddin Khan)
33. OA No. 3479/2018
MA No. 681/2020
Sunil Dutt (Age about 36 Years),
Group-"C"
S/o Sh. Sarda Ram
R/o Village-Badrola, PO-Tigaon,
Teh.Ballabgarh, Distt. Faridabad
Working as "Farash". ........................................ Applicant
(By Advocate: Sh ri S.K. Gupta with Sh. Udit Gupta, Sh. Sanket Gupta,
Sh. Anand Awasthi and Sh. Shankar Divate)
Versus
Through Union of India
1. Secretary
Ministry of Urban Development
Norman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011.
39
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
2. Director
Director of Printing,
Ministry of Urban Development
"B"Wing, Nirman Bhawan
New Delhi.110011.
3. Manager,
Govt. of India Press
Minto Road, New Delhi-110002. ............................... Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Subhash Gosain)
34. O.A. No. 3480/2018
MA No. 683/2020
Nidhi Nagpal, (Age about 38 years), Group-C
W/o Sh. Pradeep Dhawan,
R/o H. No. 1419/A, Jawahar Colony
NIT Faridabad.
Working as "Orderly (Nursing)". .......................... Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri S.K. Gupta with Sh. Udit Gupta, Sh. Sanket Gupta,
Sh. Anand Awasthi and Sh. Shankar Divate)
Versus
Through Union of India
1. Secretary
Ministry of Urban Development
Norman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011.
2. Director
Director of Printing,
Ministry of Urban Development
"B"Wing, Nirman Bhawan
New Delhi.110011.
3. Manager,
Govt. of India Press
Minto Road, New Delhi-110002. ............................... Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Hilal Haider)
35. OA No. 3493/2018
Poornima Jayachandran
Asstt. Artist Retoucher (Group-"C")
Aged about 37 years
R/o C-235, Minto Road Complex, New Delhi
40
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
Working at Government of India Press,
Minto Road,Delhi ................................................ Applicant
(By Advocate: S h r i S.K. Gupta with Sh. Udit Gupta, Sh. Sanket Gupta,
Sh. Anand Awasthi and Sh. Shankar Divate)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through The Secretary,
Ministry of Urban Development and
Poverty Alleviation,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011.
2. Director
Director of Printing,
Ministry of Urban Development
"B" Wing, Nirman Bhawan
New Delhi.110011.
3. Manager,
Govt. of India Press
Minto Road, New Delhi-110002. ............................... Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Ranjan Tyagi)
36. O.A. No. 3492/2018
1. Sh. Sandeep Kumar(Aged about 37 Years)
Assistant Binder
S/o Sh. Daya Chand
H.No.196, Sector 52
NIT, Faridabad (Haryana) Group C.
2. Sh. Sultan Singh (Aged about 45
Years) ,Assistant Binder
S/o Prabhu Dutt
H.No.30/2A Sec-2, DIZ Avenue
New Delhi, Group -C.
3. Sh.Baldeo (Aged about 40 Years)
Assistant Binder
S/o Sh. Ayodhya
H.No.2055, Sector-23A
Near NEMS Hospital
Faridabad (Haryana) Group-C .................Applicants
41
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
(By Advocate: Shri S.K. Gupta with Sh. Udit Gupta, Sh. Sanket Gupta,
Sh. Anand Awasthi and Sh. Shankar Divate)
Versus
1. The Union of India
through The Secretary,
Ministry of Urban Development,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011.
2. The Manager,
Govt. of India Press
Minto Road, New Delhi
3. The Director (Printing)
Ministry of Urban Development
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. .................. Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Ranjan Tyagi)
37. OA No. 3486/2018
Smt. Sonia Rani W/o Praveen Kumar
Junior Artist ( Group-"C")
Aged about 37 years
Government of India Press
Minto Road, New Delhi
R/o 1484/1, Jawahar Colony, NIT,
Faridabad (Haryana) .................................................. Applicant
(By Advocate: S h r i S . K . G u p t a with Sh. Udit Gupta, Sh. Sanket
Gupta, Sh. Anand Awasthi and Sh. Shankar Divate)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through The Secretary,
Ministry of Urban Development and
Poverty Alleviation,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011.
2. Director
Director of Printing,
B- Wing, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110011.
42
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
3. Manager, Govt. of India Press
Minto Road, New Delhi........................... Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Hilal Haider)
38. O.A. No. 3484/2018
Vishnu Kumar S/o Sh. Kripa Ram
Asstt. Artist Retoucher (Group C)
Age 37 years
Government of India Press
Minto Road, New Delhi.
R/o Vill & PO Bhiduki thok, Jaildar
Tehsil Hodal, Distt: Palwal-121107
Haryana................................................................ Applicant
(By Advocate: S h r i S . K . G u p t a with Sh. Udit Gupta, Sh. Sanket
Gupta, Sh. Anand Awasthi and Sh. Shankar Divate)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through The Secretary,
Ministry of Urban Development and
Poverty Alleviation,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Director
Directorate of Printing,
B-Wing, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi.
3. Manager,
Govt. of India Press
Minto Road, New Delhi........................... Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Ranjan Tyagi)
39. O.A. No. 3481/2018
Vinod Kumar, (Aged about 38 years), Group-C
S/o Sh. Gopal Singh
R/o B-25, New Press Colony, Faridabad
Working as Peon ...................................................... Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri S.K. Gupta with Sh. Udit Gupta, Sh. Sanket Gupta,
Sh. Anand Awasthi and Sh. Shankar Divate)
43
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
Versus
Through Union of India
1. Secretary,
Ministry of Urban Development,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011.
2. Director
Directorate of Printing, Ministry
of Urban Development ,B- Wing,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110011.
3. Manager,
Govt. of India Press
Minto Road, New Delhi........................... Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Subhash Gosain)
40. O.A. No. 3352/2018
MA No. 675/2020
1. Narender Kumar (Age about 37 years),
S/o Sh. Jai Prakash, Group C
R/o H.No. 557, Sec-55, Faridabad
Working as Labourer, GIP Minto Road.
2. Johan Bodra (Age about 33 years),
S/o Sh. Nag Singh Bodra, Group C
R/o C/o Dr. Samika Horo,
DDA MIG Flat No. 202, Punjabi Bagh Enclave,
Madipur, New Delhi.
Working as Labourer, GIP Minto Road.
3. Raj Kumar-I (Age about 42 years),
S/o Sh. Ved Ram Verma, Group C
R/o H. No. 2400, Jawahar Colony, Faridabad.
Working as Labourer, GIP Minto Road.
4. Sunil Singmar (Age about 31 years), Group C
S/o Sh. Om Singh, R/o B-68, NPC, Faridabad.
Working as Labourer, GIP Minto Road.
44
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
5. Ravinder-I (Age about 35 years),
Group C, S/o Sh. Dhan Singh,
R/o Vill- Bhankr, Faridabad.
Working as Labourer, GIP Minto Road.
6. Raj Kumar-II (Age about 39 years),
S/o Sh. Mahender Singh, Group C
R/o VPO- Hasanpur, Tehsil- Hodal, Palwal.
Working as Labourer, GIP Minto Road.
7. Parvesh (Age about 33 years),
Group C, S/o Sh. Bir Singh,
R/o Vill. Bhatola, Faridabad.
Working as Labourer, GIP Minto Road.
8. Ravinder II (Age about 29 years),
S/o Sh. Ram Chand, Group C
R/o VPO Phulwari, Palwal.
Working as Labourer, GIP Minto Road.
9. Shivender Kumar (Age about 32 years),
Group C, S/o Sh.,
R/o Vill. Pahladpur Majra Badrola,
Tehsil. Ballabhgarh, Faridabad.
Working as Labourer, GIP Minto Road.
10. Bari Gopal Surdeo (Ex. SM) (Age about 50 years),
S/o Sh. Sukhdeo Laxman Bari, Group C
R/o PO- Gandhi Nagar AT, Wadala Gaon,
New Ganesh Nagar, Nasik.
Working as Labourer, GIP Minto Road.
11. Birender Singh (Ex. SM) (Age about 52 years),
Group C, S/o Parmal Singh, R/o VPO Baroli,
Palwal. Working as Labourer, GIP Minto Road.
12. Ajay Kumar (Age about 41 years),
S/o Sh. Prem Kishan, Group C
R/o 67/827, Mandir Marg, New Delhi.
Working as Labourer, GIP Minto Road.
13. Manish Bhardwaj (Age about 32 years),
S/o Sh. Sushil Bhardwaj, Group C
R/o C-11, Nav Rachna Appartment,
East Arjun Nagar, Shahdra, Delhi.
Working as Labourer, GIP Minto Road.
45
OA No.3279/2018 and connected cases
14. Amit Chandila (Age about 30 years),
S/o Sh. Dharam Singh, Group C
R/o Bhatola, P.O. Baroli Chandila, Faridabad.
Working as Labourer, GIP Minto Road.
15. Mahavir (Age about 32 years),
S/o Neh Pal, Group C
R/o Vill. Bhuapur, PO Tigam,
Ballabhgarh, Faridabad.
Working as Labourer, GIP Minto Road.
16. Ram Chander (Age about 50 years),
S/o Galler Singh, Group C
R/o VPO Amarpur, Palwal.
Working as Labourer, GIP Minto Road.
17. Dinesh Sharma (Age about 32 years),
S/o Sh. Hans Raj Sharma, Group C
R/o Naya Gaon, Mohtabad, Faridabad.
Working as Labourer, GIP Minto Road.
18. Rajesh Kumar (Age about 33 years),
S/o Sh. Bhim Singh, Group C
R/o G-91, Old Press Colony, Faridabad. Working
as Labourer, GIP Minto Road.
19. Ravi Gera (Age about 34 years),
S/o Sh. Diwan Chand, Group C
R/o 3-A-58, NIT, Faridabad.
Working as Labourer, GIP Minto Road.
20. Naresh Kumar (Age about 34 years),
S/o Sh. Jai Lal, Group C
R/o H. No. 557, Sec. 55, Faridabad.
Working as Labourer, GIP Minto Road.
... Applicants
(By Advocate: Shri S.K. Gupta with Sh. Udit Gupta, Sh. Sanket Gupta,
Sh. Anand Awasthi and Sh. Shankar Divate)
Versus
Through Union of India
1. Secretary,
Ministry of Urban Development,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110011.
46
Item No. 22
Court-2 OA No. 3279/2018 and batch
2. Director,
Directorate of Printing,
Ministry of Urban
Development, B Wing,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110011.
3. Manager,
Govt. of India Press,
Minto Road,
New Delhi-110002.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Ranjan Tyagi, Shri Subash Gosain)
47
Item No. 22
Court-2 OA No. 3279/2018 and batch
O R D E R (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J) On 19.07.2024, the matter was heard at length and we were in the mid of dictating the orders, however, for paucity of time and for a few minor clarifications, the OA(s) were deferred for today. Today, we have further heard the matter.
2. In the aforesaid background, we reproduce paragraphs 1 to 9 of the order dated 19.07.2024:
"The captioned Original Applications (OAs) filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 were earlier dismissed by this Tribunal vide a common order dated 21.02.2019. The applicants herein approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi through various Writ Petitions including Writ Petition (C) No. 2184/2019 and such a batch of Writ Petitions was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide a common order/judgment dated 14.10.2019 remanding the matter to this Tribunal for fresh hearing so that the objections pertaining to the report of examination held for the posts at Faridabad Press is examined objectively on its own merits. The captioned OAs are listed today as 'part heard' for further hearing. Learned counsels for the parties admit that the issue involved in all the aforesaid OAs is common, the applicants have pleaded for similar reliefs on common grounds, the OAs were adjudicated by this Tribunal in the past vide a common order and the relevant Writ Petitions were also adjudicated by the Hon'ble High Court vide a common order/judgment in the relevant Writ Petitions. Accordingly, with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, all the aforesaid OAs have been heard together and are being decided by the present common order. However, for writing the present order, the facts are being taken from the pleadings available in OA No. 3279/2018 titled Krishan Kumar v/s Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs.
2. Undisputed facts are that in November, 2007, the respondents issued an advertisement notice in 48 Item No. 22 Court-2 OA No. 3279/2018 and batch Employment News to fill up vacancies for various posts including the post of Offset Machine Attendant and the applicant applied and participated in the relevant selection process pursuant to the said Advertisement. In January, 2008, an offer of appointment was issued to him for the post of Offset Machine Attendant vide memorandum dated 14.01.2008 wherein it had been provided that there will be two years of probation period. Again on 23.01.2008 respondents issued an order reiterating therein the period of probation of the applicant to be for two years. The applicant was served with notice of termination dated 23.08.2018 (Annexure A-1) vide which it had been conveyed to him that his services shall stand terminated with effect from the date of expiry of one month from the date on which the notice was served. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned termination notice, the applicant had approached this Tribunal by way of OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It is also undisputed that all the applicants in the captioned OAs had been selected pursuant to the aforesaid Advertisement for various posts like Artist Retoucher, Asstt. Artist Retoucher, Senior Artist, Junior Artist, Desk Top Publishing Operator, Welder, Carpenter, Offset Machine Man, Offset Machine Asstt., Offset Machine Attendant, Mechanic (Printing & Binding), Copy Holder, Assistant Builder, Labourer, Chowkidar, Peon, Farash, Orderly (Nursing), Safaiwala, Assistant Cook, Tea Maker and Coupen Clerk, as reflected in the aforesaid Advertisement issued by the respondents. It is further undisputed that all the applicants were issued identical impugned termination notices and of the same date i.e. 23.08.2018.
3. It is further undisputed that a separate Advertisement was issued for appointment on various posts in Government of India Press at Aligarh, Mayapuri and Nilokheri. However, the applicants in the present OAs were allowed to participate in the selection process pursuant to the aforesaid Advertisement which was for filing up the post only in the Government of India press at Faridabad. Later, in view of complaints, an investigation was ordered by the competent authority amongst the respondents and the investigation was entrusted to the then Additional Secretary and Chief Vigilance Officer. The said Inquiry Officer submitted his report in respect of the selection and appointment made on various posts in Government of India Press pursuant to the aforesaid Advertisement dated November, 2007 (Annexure R-3 & 4).
4. Pursuant to the report of the Inquiry Officer submitted in the year 2010 (Annexure R-3) and in compliance of order(s) of the Court(s), the 49 Item No. 22 Court-2 OA No. 3279/2018 and batch respondents passed orders dated 03.05.2012, 04.05.2012 and 21.05.2012 scrapping the selection process and terminating the services of even those who had joined the services of the respondents at Government of India press at Aligarh, Mayapuri and Nilokheri. Aggrieved by these orders of May 2012, OA No. 1554/2012 titled Manjeet Sharma and Ors. vs Union of India & Ors. was filed and other batch of applicants approached through different OAs and this Tribunal dismissed the OA No. 1554/2012 (supra) with batch of OAs vide common order dated 19.03.2014. The applicants therein in the case of Manjeet Sharma (supra) and batch approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide Writ Petition (C) No. 2001/14 with a batch of other Writ Petitions and the said Writ Petitions were dismissed vide a common order dated 24.12.2014. SLP filed against the order/judgment of the Hon'ble High Court dated 24.12.2014 was also dismissed vide order dated 24.10.2017. Further, pursuant to the report of the Inquiring Authority submitted in the year 2015 (Annexure R-4), the respondents have issued the impugned order(s) of termination to the applicants in the captioned OAs. Aggrieved by the impugned termination notices dated 23.08.2018, the applicants have approached this Tribunal by way of the captioned OAs and these OAs were dismissed by this Tribunal vide a common order dated 21.02.2019. The applicants herein, aggrieved by the said common order dated 21.02.2019 had approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by way of Writ Petition (C) No. 2184/2019 and various other Writ Petitions and all these Writ Petitions were disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide a common order/judgment dated 14.10.2019, paragraphs 14 to 20 of which read as under:-
"14. Having regard to the submissions so made, more particularly the points of difference which we have noticed in the afore-going paras, we are of the view that the earlier reports cannot be conclusive and would not be binding with respect to subsequent examination conducted for a different printing press and the subsequent report would have to stand on its own legs even if, as has been urged by the counsel appearing for the respondents, the irregularities are somewhat similar and the examinations were also held in the same time period.
15. For the reasons stated above, we deem it appropriate to remand all these matters back to the Tribunal for fresh hearing so that the objections pertaining to the report of examination held for the 50 Item No. 22 Court-2 OA No. 3279/2018 and batch posts at Faridabad Press is examined objectively on its own merits.
Considering the submission made by the counsel for the respondents that the allegations are very serious in nature, despite the Tribunal's heavy cause list, we request the Tribunal to take an early decision in the matter. The Tribunal will notice the submissions of the counsels for the parties and thereafter pass a reasoned order.
16. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.
17. Interim order dated 06.03.2019 passed in W.P. (C) 2129/2019 and other connected matters shall continue till the matters are taken-up by the Tribunal.
18. We reiterate that no special equity will flow in favour of the petitioners in view of the order passed either at the first stage before the Tribunal or by this court.
19. Parties to appear before the Tribunal on 05.11.2019.
20. With these observations, the writ petitions stand disposed of."
5. In the aforesaid background, the matter is before us on being remanded by the High Court vide order/judgment dated 14.10.2019.
6. Sh. S.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants, in support of the claim of the applicants has argued:-
(i) the impugned termination notices are on face of them stigmatic, founded on an adverse and stigmatic report submitted by the Inquiring Authority appointed by the respondents and such inquiry was unilateral inasmuch as the applicants were never accorded any opportunity of defence. He has submitted that based on the stigmatic reports submitted by the Inquiring Authority, in the year 2015, the respondents have passed the impugned order(s).
(ii) the appointments to various posts in the Government of India Press at three other places other than Faridabad was pursuant to an entirely different selection process/advertisement and inquiry report qua the selection and appointment pursuant thereto and/or any order(s) passed based on such report shall not be binding and applicable to the case of the applicants inasmuch as the applicants had participated in an entirely different selection process pursuant to a 51 Item No. 22 Court-2 OA No. 3279/2018 and batch different advertisement for a particular Press at Faridabad.
(iii) the persons involved in the case of Manjeet Sharma (supra) and others were not terminated by the respondents by invoking the provisions of Rule 5(i) of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Temporary Service Rules) whereas in the cases in hand, the respondents have admittedly invoked their jurisdiction as available to them under Rule 5(i) of the Temporary Service Rules and once they have invoked their such jurisdiction they are bound to comply with the related requirements and as under
the settled law.
7. Pursuant to the said selection process against which the applicants before this Tribunal were appointed, a few have not only been continued in service but have been confirmed and subsequently promoted and it is not the case that the respondents have scrapped the entire selection process initiated in response to the advertisement issued by them in November 2007.
8. Sh. Gupta, learned counsel, to elaborate the aforesaid points of arguments has argued that admittedly on receipt of various complaints regarding irregularity and illegality in the selection process, relevant in the case of the applicants, the respondents have appointed Inquiring Authority, the said Inquiring Authority has not only submitted his report stigmatic and prejudicial to the applicant but without affording an opportunity to the applicants. Such report is not a legal and valid report and the same being the foundation of the notices of termination or termination order(s) shall lead to making such notices/orders non est in the eyes of law. He, in support of his such arguments has placed reliance on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:
1. Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. S.N. Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta, AIR 1999 SC 983
2. Radhe Shyam Gupta vs. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and another, (1999) 2 SCC 21
3. Chandra Prakash Shahi vs. State of UP and others, (2000) 5 SCC 152
4. State Bank of India and others vs. Palak Modi and another, (2013) 3 SCC 607
5. Sandeep Kumar vs. GB Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology Ghurdauri and ors.
9. He has placed reliance on the following order(s) of the Tribunal which have attained finality after 52 Item No. 22 Court-2 OA No. 3279/2018 and batch implementation of the directions of the Tribunal therein:-
1. Chandan Kumar vs. UOI & Ors., OA No. 1834/2023, Principal Bench
2. Manjeet Singh vs. UOI & Ors., OA No. 4727/2015, Principal Bench
3. P. Phani Kumar & Anr. vs. The Director & Ors., OA No. 908/2011 and 909/2011 of Hyderabad Bench
4. Satyender vs GNCTD & Ors., OA No. 1319/2021, Principal Bench
5. Vishalakshi Nigam vs. UOI & Ors. and connected case, OA No. 341/2020 and OA No. 1826/2019, Principal Bench"
3. Sh. S.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants has further argued that not only the impugned notice(s) of termination are bad for being based on an inquiry casting stigma but also on the ground that the inquiry report on which the respondents have placed reliance does not disclose as to who has carried out the inquiry and submitted the same.
He further adds that the said report (Annexure R-4) does not carry the signatures and/or name of any official or even date of such report, of course in the counter reply, the respondents have asserted that the said report was submitted in the year 2015. Sh. Gupta, learned counsel has further argued that admittedly the report was submitted by the concerned official in the year 2015 however, the approval by the Hon'ble Minister of State concerned has been accorded on 11.04.2012 i.e. even before the report of the concerned authority tendered in the year 2015.
4. Lastly, Sh. Gupta, learned counsel has argued that on a bare perusal of the counter reply filed on behalf of the respondents it is 53 Item No. 22 Court-2 OA No. 3279/2018 and batch apparent that the selection process was initiated, completed and appointment(s) if any, were made in the three Government of India Presses i.e. Aligarh, Mayapuri and Nilokheri separately, and on receipt of complaint(s) if any, in respect of such selection and appointment(s), a separate inquiry was got conducted and the same was submitted and report to this effect was submitted in the year 2010 (Annexure R-3) whereas the selection was initiated, completed and the appointment(s) were made in the case of the applicants herein for Government of India Press, Faridabad separately and independently and a separate inquiry was got conducted and based on that report (though he has disputed the very genuineness of such report) in the year 2015 (Annexure R-4). He accordingly presses for grant of relief as sought by the applicant(s) in the captioned OA(s).
5. On the other hand, Sh. Subhash Gosain, learned counsel who appears for the respondents in a few of the OA(s) including OA No. 3279/2018, by referring to the assertions made by the respondents in their counter reply has argued that the recruitment process was suspended on 03.04.2008 in respect of all the Government of India Presses including at Mayapuri, Nilokheri, Aligarh and Faridabad. On receipt of complaints, the investigation was entrusted to the then Additional Secretary (AS) & Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) who had submitted two reports, one in the year 2010 in respect of three Government of India Presses i.e. Aligarh, Nilokheri and Mayapuri and and another in the year 2015 in respect of Faridabad (Annexure R-3 54 Item No. 22 Court-2 OA No. 3279/2018 and batch and R-4 respectively). He submits that discrepancies were reported by way of the said reports in Advertisement with reference to qualifications, number of vacancies etc. It was also reported that the Appointing Authority in some cases was not appropriate one and though the competent authority for appointment has been Director, however, Manager of Government of India Press has taken decision in some cases besides selection to certain posts without consideration of laid out criteria has led into preparation of the list etc. In such view of the matter, with the approval of the competent authority, the impugned notice(s) were issued.
6. He has further argued that mere selection does not bestow vested right of appointment. He has also invited our attention to the assertions made by the respondents that the inquiry by AS & CVO was in progress and therefore, the applicant(s) were not confirmed in their post and they remained on probation. He has further argued that the applicant(s) were not confirmed in their respective post(s) and the competent authority was well within its jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of Rule 5(1) of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 to pass the impugned termination notice(s). The respondents have further pleaded that the contention of the applicant(s) that when the inquiry was in progress and they were under probation will not give rise to their continuation of services beyond two years and shall not result into the applicant(s) being entitled for being declared as deemed confirmed. The respondents have lastly placed reliance on the 55 Item No. 22 Court-2 OA No. 3279/2018 and batch order/judgment dated 19.03.2014 of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 1554/2012 titled Manjeet Sharma & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. with a batch, which has attained finality (Annexure R-6).
7. Other learned counsels appearing for the respondents have adopted the arguments advanced by Sh. Gosain, learned Advocate.
8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance, have also perused the pleadings available on record.
9. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that earlier the Tribunal had dismissed the captioned OA(s) vide a common order/judgment dated 21.02.2019 primarily placing reliance on the common order/judgment dated 19.03.2014 in the case of Manjeet Sharma (supra). The common order/judgment dated 21.02.2019 was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by the applicants herein through various Writ Petitions including WP(C) No. 2184/2019 and such Writ Petitions were disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court vide order/judgment dated 14.10.2019. Paragraphs 14-20 of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court read as under:
"14. Having regard to the submissions so made, more particularly the points of difference which we have noticed in the afore-going paras, we are of the view that the earlier reports cannot be conclusive and would not be binding with respect to subsequent examination conducted for a different printing press and the subsequent report would have to stand on its own legs even if, as has been urged by the counsel appearing for the respondents, the irregularities are 56 Item No. 22 Court-2 OA No. 3279/2018 and batch somewhat similar and the examinations were also held in the same time period.
15. For the reasons stated above, we deem it appropriate to remand all these matters back to the Tribunal for fresh hearing so that the objections pertaining to the report of examination held for the posts at Faridabad Press is examined objectively on its own merits. Considering the submission made by the counsel for the respondents that the allegations are very serious in nature, despite the Tribunal's heavy cause list, we request the Tribunal to take an early decision in the matter. The Tribunal will notice the submissions of the counsels for the parties and thereafter pass a reasoned order.
16. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.
17. Interim order dated 06.03.2019 passed in W.P. (C) 2129/2019 and other connected matters shall continue till the matters are taken-up by the Tribunal.
18. We reiterate that no special equity will flow in favour of the petitioners in view of the order passed either at the first stage before the Tribunal or by this court.
19. Parties to appear before the Tribunal on 05.11.2019.
20. With these observations, the writ petitions stand disposed of."
10. We have also gone through the two reports submitted by the AS & CVO, one in respect of the complaint against selection and appointment(s) in Government of India Presses at Aligarh, Nilokheri and Mayapuri (submitted in the year 2010) (Annexure R-3) and another in that of Faridabad (submitted in the year 2015) (Annexure R-4). The report submitted in the year 2010 in respect of selection and appointment(s) made in the aforesaid three Government of India Presses is admittedly independent and distinct from that of the report submitted in the year 2015, i.e. in respect of the appointment(s) of the applicants in Government of India Press at Faridabad.
57 Item No. 22Court-2 OA No. 3279/2018 and batch
11. Paragraph 7 of the report submitted in the year 2010 in respect of selection and appointment(s) at Aligarh, Nilokheri and Mayapuri (Annexure R-3) reads as under:
"7. Summary of the main findings: In the entire recruitment process, it has been found that (A) GIP, Nilokheri during the year 2007 & 2008 advertised 125 posts which were in excess of 90 approved number of posts essentially required to be filled as per Directorate of Printing Office Order No. 20(5)/2002-A.III dated 8.05.2007. Out of 125 posts advertised, 65 were approved posts and remaining 60 were not approved. 25 approved posts were not advertised.
(Para 3.5.1 & 3.5.2) (B) Against the 125 posts advertised, the Recruitment Boards recommended 44 candidates for various post. The press made appointment for only 33 posts. Ten persons were not allowed to join at Nilokheri Press subsequent to suspension of Recruitment Process on 3-4-2008 as per directives of Directorate of Printing Appointment of one candidate for the post of Artist Retoucher was not approved by DOP and hence no offer of appointment was issued against this post. (Para 3.5.3) (C) Out of 44 candidates recommended for appointment 17 were against approved posts and 27 against unapproved posts.
(Para 3.5.4) (D) Out of 33 candidates appointed, 15 were against approved posts and 18 against unapproved posts. (Para 3.5.5) (E) There is no evidence to support any allegation of bribe or manipulation against any official of the GIP, Nilokheri.
(Para 5.1.5) (F) No records are available to substantiate the allegation that Shri Mehra has purchased a car and a property at Mayur Vihar. However, Shri Mehra is stated to have purchased a flat at Dwarka as informed by himself to his office, the source of funds for which is being examined by Directorate of Printing. In the event of any prima facie case of disproportionate assets, the matter may be referred to CBI by Director of Printing (Para 5.1.5(b) 58 Item No. 22 Court-2 OA No. 3279/2018 and batch (G) The orders dated 25.1.2008 for giving additional charge of Manager, GIP to Shri C.S. Mehra, Deputy Director, Directorate of Printing without any authority in the midst of interview process already on. This appears to have been done to influence the recruitment process. Director/Addl.
Director (Printing) should be held responsible for this. (Para 5.1.5(c) (H) After orders dated February 01, 2007 giving additional charge of Manager GIP, Nilokheri to Shri Bodra were issued, although Shri Bodra looked after the work of Manager, GIP at Nilokheri, he had not formally taken over the charge of Manager, GIP at Nilokheri in the prescribed proforma. Even Shri Mehra had taken charge not from his predecessor (Shri Bodra) but from his Deputy Manager of the Press (Shri R.B. Suhag). Directorate of Printing may look into the practice of handing over/taking over charge formally as an administrative irregularity and take appropriate measures.
(Para 5.1.5(c) (I) The available documents do not substantiate the allegation that Shri Gagandeep was called at 4.30 PM on 3.4.2008 and that he joined on back date.
(Para 5.2.5) (J) Based on the documents available, there is no evidence to support the allegation that Shri Gagan Deep was not eligible for appointment to the post of Offset Machine Attendant.
(Para 5.3.5(a) & (b) (K) There is no evidence to support the allegation that direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Binder should not have been done.
(Para 5.3.5(c) (L) There is no evidence to support the allegation that the norms laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal No. 4347-54 of 1990 in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others vs U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukh Berozgar Sangh &Others was violated in the recruitment of apprentices at GIP, Nilokheri during 2008.
(Para 5.4.5) (M) Appointments in April, 2008 in GOI Press Nilokheri have been made without any prior verification of character and antecedents of the selected candidates. GOI Press Nilokheri (Haryana) got the character and antecedents of the candidates verified by May/June 2008 i.e. after a lapse of months after their appointment in March/April 2008. GIP Nilokheri did not take simultaneous action in March, 2008 for verification of character and antecedents 59 Item No. 22 Court-2 OA No. 3279/2018 and batch during this period. There has been undue hurry and eagerness on the part of the Manager, GIP, Nilokheri to complete the entire process of recruitment in haste without following the prescribed norms and procedure relating to verification of character and antecedents. (Para 5.5.5) (N) No application of the individual (Shri Ajay Singh) had been received by GIP Nilokheri. There is no prima-facie evidence to support the allegation of unfairness made by Shri Ajay Singh.
(Para 5.6.5(a) (O) Shri Rajender Singh appeared for interview for the post of Assistant Binder but he was not finally recommended by the Recruitment Board for appointment to this post. There is no prima-facie evidence to support the allegation of unfairness in non selection of Shri Rajinder Singh.
(Para 5.6.5(b) (R.C. Mishra) Additional Secretary & CVO MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT Date 9th March, 2010 NEW DELHI
12. Paragraph 5.3 of the report submitted in the year 2015 (Annexure R-4) in respect of selection and appointment(s) in the case of the applicant(s) in Government of India Press at Faridabad reads as under:
"5.3 After the examination of the selection of the entire selection process, the following aspects have been noticed:-
(i) There are discrepancies in advertisement with reference to qualifications. Besides, the number of vacancies given in the advertisement were not firmed up in advance. Details of employees where discrepancies have been found is placed at Annexure XIV.
(ii) The Appointing Authority in some cases was not the appropriate one. The competent authority for appointment is Director (Printing) whereas Manager of the GIP appears to have taken the decision in some cases.
(iii) Selections to certain posts without consideration of laid down criteria have resulted in preparation of lists against Apprentice Act leading to litigation.
(iv) Wherever candidates in reserved category/categories have been selected for unreserved 60 Item No. 22 Court-2 OA No. 3279/2018 and batch posts, relaxations have been permitted which appears to be against the instructions of DoP&T.
(v) The order in which appointments were recommended in some cases differs from rankings by the Selection Committee. Further, candidates who failed in trade tests have been recommended for appointment.
(vi) Despite a large number of applications, the criteria for rejection and identification of eligible candidates appears to be not objective or systematic.
(vii) 16 of the candidates in various categories who were overage, or short of experience or failed in trade test.
(viii) 59 candidates out of total 153 selected candidates are found to be relatives of mostly Press Employees of Faridabad. This is approximately 1/3rd of the persons appointed. This casts shadow of doubt on the entire process of selection.
Keeping in view large scale irregularities and lack of transparency it would be appropriate if detailed investigation is done by any specialized agency."
13. Further, the report of 2015, itself admittedly in respect of Government of India Press, Faridabad has finally concluded by recording "Keeping in view large scale irregularities and lack of transparency it would be appropriate if detailed investigation is done by any specialized agency." which is not a case in the report of 2010 which was in respect of appointment(s) in three other Government of India Presses. Moreover, a bare perusal of the findings as recorded under the aforesaid two reports clearly indicates substantial distinction.
14. The approval accorded by the Hon'ble Minister on 11.04.2012 (Annexure R-5) reads as under:
"Ministry of Urban Development The matter has not been properly placed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The very important fact is that complaints of irregularities have been 61 Item No. 22 Court-2 OA No. 3279/2018 and batch received in respect of 6 GOI Presses which are Aligarh, Coimbatore, Faridabad, Minto Road, Nilokheri and Ring Road, Maya Puri and no complaint of any irregularity has been received in respect of 5 Presses which are Koratty, Nashik, Rashtrapati Bhawan, Santragachi and Temple Street. This should have invariably been submitted in the affidavit filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Secretary (UD) to verify the fact whether the report of the CVO could be applied to the recruitments made in to GOI Presses of Koratty, Nashik, Rashtrapati Bhawan, Santragachi and Temple Street since there was no complaint of any irregularity.
If it is confirmed that the CVO report is not applicable to the recruitments made in to GOI Presses of Koratty, Nashik, Rashtrapati Bhawan, Santragachi and Temple Street, then Secretary (UD) to take immediate action for making submission on behalf of Government of India in the High Court of Delhi intimating the correct factual position that complaints of irregularities have only been received in respect of 6 GOI Presses and there are other Presses as mentioned above where there is no complaint of any irregularity and accordingly the Government of India intend to go ahead with the process of recruitments made in the GOI Presses of Koratty, Nashik, Rashtrapati Bhawan, Santragachi and Temple Street since the report of CVO is not applicable to recruitments made in these Presses. The CVO report may be agreed to in respect of 6 GOI Presses where complaints of irregularities have come to notice and cancel/terminate the appointment in respect of all candidates including those who have already joined the service.
May kindly approve the course of action as suggested above.
-sd-
(Saugata Roy) MoS (UD)
15. A perusal of the aforesaid approval on 11.04.2012 indicates that the same refers to the report of CVO even in respect of selection and appointment(s) made in Government of India Press, Faridabad whereas it is categorical stand of the respondents in the present case that the said 62 Item No. 22 Court-2 OA No. 3279/2018 and batch report itself was submitted by the AS & CVO in the year 2015 (Annexure R-4).
16. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that once the very Advertisement for the relevant selection and appointment(s) in the case of Manjeet Sharma (supra) which was related to the Government of India Press at Aligarh, Nilokheri and Mayapuri got done in respect of such selection and appointment(s) was separate, the report submitted by the AS & CVO is not only separate but also distinct from that in respect of selection and appointment(s) related to the case of applicant(s) in Government of India Press, Faridabad, we are of the considered view that the order/judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Manjeet Sharma (supra) shall not be applicable in the present case.
17. In view of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the approval for the impugned action has been accorded by the competent authority in April, 2012 despite there being no report from the CVO. Further, despite the recommendation of the CVO itself for a detailed investigation to be done by any specialized agency, neither any such investigation has been got carried out by any specialized agency nor any reason has been given by the respondents as to why a regular departmental inquiry has not been found possible. Though the impugned termination notice(s) are based on the reported irregularity in the recruitment of the applicants, however, as recorded hereinabove, the Inquiry Officer i.e. the AS & CVO itself has recommended for a detailed investigation to be carried out by a specialized agency and no 63 Item No. 22 Court-2 OA No. 3279/2018 and batch reason has been given by the respondents either through their counter reply or by way of any document as to how even without carrying out such investigation, the respondents have opted for terminating the services of the applicant(s). If at all the foundation for the impugned termination notice(s) is illegality and malpractices in the selection and appointment process, as the impugned termination notice(s) and the counter reply filed on behalf of the respondents indicate, is concerned, we may refer to the judgments referred and relied by the learned counsel for the applicant(s).
18. In the case of Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. S.N. Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta, reported in AIR 1999 SC 983, in paragraphs 33-36, the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled as under:
"33. The next question is whether the reference in the impugned order to the three earlier letters amounts to stigma if those three letters contained anything in the nature of a stigma even though the order of termination itself did not contain anything offensive.
34. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon Indrapal Gupta vs. Managing Committee [1984 (3) SCC 384] decided by a three Judge Bench of this Court. In that case the order of termination of probation, which is extracted in the judgment, reads as follows:
"With reference to the above (viz. termination of service as Principal), I have to mention that in view of the resolution No.2 of the Managing Committee dated April 27, 1969 (copy enclosed) and subsequent approval by the D.I.O.S., Bulandshahr, you are hereby informed that your service as Principal of this Institution is terminated ....."
Now the copy of Resolution of the Managing Committee appended to the order of termination stated that the Report of the Manager was read at the meeting and that the "facts contained in the Report of the Manager being serious and not in the interests of 64 Item No. 22 Court-2 OA No. 3279/2018 and batch the institute, that therefore the Committee unanimously resolved to terminate his probation." The Report of the Manager was not extracted in the enclosure to the termination order but was extracted in the Counter filed in the case and read as follows (para 3 of AIR):
"It will be evident from the above, that the Principal's stay will not be in the interest of the Institution. It is also evident that the serious view of the lapses is enough to justify dismissal but no educational institution should take all this botheration. As such my suggestion is that our purpose will be served by termination of his services. Why, then, we should enter into any botheration. For the termination of his period of probation, too, the approval of the DIOS will be necessary. Accordingly, any delay in the matter may also be harmful to our interests. Accordingly, I suggest that instead of taking serious action, the period of probation of Sri Inder Pal Gupta be terminated without waiting for the period to end."
It was held by Venkataramiah, J. (as he then was) (p.392) (of SCC) : at p. 1115 of AIR) that the letter of termination referred to the resolution of the Managing Committee, that the said resolution was made part of the order as an enclosure and that the Resolution in its turn referred to the report of the Manager. A copy of the Manager's report had been filed alongwith the counter and the said report was the `foundation'. Venkataramiah,J. (as he then was) held that the Manager's report contained words amounting to stigma. The learned Judge said: "This is a clear case where the order of termination issued is merely a camouflage for an order imposing a penalty of termination of service on the ground of misconduct", that these findings in the Manager's report amounted to a `mark of disgrace or infamy' and that the appellant there was visited with evil consequences. The officer was reinstated with all benefits of backwages and continuity of service.
35. It will be seen from the above case that the resolution of the committee was part of the termination order being an enclosure to it. But the offensive part was not really contained in the order of termination nor in the Resolution which was an enclosure to the order of termination but in the Manager's report which was referred to in the enclosure. The said report of the Manager was placed before the Court along with the counter. The allegations in the Manager's report were the basis for the termination and the said report contained words amounting to stigma. The termination order was, as stated above, set aside.
65 Item No. 22Court-2 OA No. 3279/2018 and batch
36. The above decision is, in our view, clear authority for the proposition that the material which amounts to stigma need not be contained in the order of termination of the probationer but might be contained in any document referred to in the termination order or in its Annexures. Obviously such a document could be asked for or called for by any future employer of the probationer. In such a case, the order of termination would stand vitiated on the ground that no regular inquiry was conducted. We shall presently consider whether, on the facts of the case before us, the documents referred to in the impugned order contain any stigma."
19. In the case of Radhe Shyam Gupta vs. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and another, reported in (1999) 2 SCC 21, in paragraph 22, the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled as under:
"22. We then come to the third case decided by the Constitution Bench in Madan Gopal vs State of Punjab. Here Shah, J. (as he then was), applied the same principle laid down earlier by him but in this case, he held the order was punitive. That was a case of a temporary employee. There was a report of the settlement officer about the "misconduct" of the employee and the termination was based on the said report. It was, therefore, held that though the order of termination was an order simpliciter, still the court could go behind the same and further, if the foundation was the finding as to misconduct, then the order was punitive. The termination order was quashed even though the employee participated therein because the statutory procedure for a regular departmental enquiry was not followed. Emphasis was again made on the "purpose of the enquiry". The distinction between the earlier case and this case was that while in Ram Narayan Das case the inquiry was made to find out if the probationer could be continued and confirmed and was, therefore, not punitive, the position in the Madan Gopal case was that the enquiry by the settlement officer was to find out if the employee was guilty of misconduct. In fact, the termination order was based on the enquiry held behind his back and was held to be punitive. In Ranendra Chandra Banerjee v. Union of India it being a case of a probationer to whom Rule 55-B of the Central Rules applied, Wanchoo, J. (as he then was) upheld the order on the ground that the limited purpose of the enquiry was to find out whether he could be "retained or not" in the service. In other words, the enquiry was not with a view to see if the employee had misconducted in his duties. This case was similar to Ram Narayan Das case."66 Item No. 22
Court-2 OA No. 3279/2018 and batch
20. In the case of Chandra Prakash Shahi vs State of UP and others, reported in (2000) 5 SCC 152, in paragraphs 27-28, the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled as under:
"27. The whole case law is thus based on the peculiar facts of each individual case and it is wrong to say that decisions have been swinging like a pendulum; right, the order is valid; left, the order is punitive. It was urged before this Court, more than once including in Ram Chandra Trivedi case that there was a conflict of decisions on the question of an order being a simple termination order or a punitive order, but every time the Court rejected the contention and held that the apparent conflict was on account of different facts of different cases requiring the principles already laid down by this Court in various decisions to be applied to a different situation. But the concept of "motive" and "foundation" was always kept in view.
28. The important principles which are deducible on the concept of "motive" and "foundation", concerning a probationer, are that a probationer has no right to hold the post and his services can be terminated at any time during or at the end of the period of probation on account of general unsuitability for the post in question. If for the determination of suitability of the probationer for the post in question or for his further retention in service or for confirmation, an inquiry is held and it is on the basis of that inquiry that a decision is taken to terminate his service, the order will not be punitive in nature. But, if there are allegations of misconduct and an enquiry is held to find out the truth of that misconduct and an order terminating the service is passed on the basis of that inquiry, the order would be punitive in nature as the enquiry was held not for assessing the general suitability of the employee for the post in question, but to find out the truth of allegations of misconduct against that employee. In this situation, the 67 Item No. 22 Court-2 OA No. 3279/2018 and batch order would be founded on misconduct and it will not be a mere matter of "motive".
21. In the case of State Bank of India and others vs. Palak Modi and another, reported in (2013) 3 SCC 607, in paragraph 37, the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled as under:
"37. The use of unfair means in the evaluation test/confirmation test held by the Bank certainly constitutes a misconduct. The Bank itself had treated such an act to be a misconduct (Para 10 of Advertisement dated 1-7-2008). It is not in dispute that the services of the private respondents were not terminated on the ground that there was any deficiency or shortcoming in their work or performance during probation or that they had failed to satisfactorily complete the training or had failed to secure the qualifying marks in the test held on 27-2-2011. As a matter of fact, the note prepared by the Deputy General Manager, which was approved by the General Manager makes it crystal clear that the decision to dispense with the services of the private respondents was taken solely on the ground that they were guilty of using unfair means in the test held on 27-2-2011. To put it differently, the foundation of the action taken by the General Manager was the accusation that while appearing in the objective test, the private respondents had resorted to copying. IBPS had relied upon the analysis made by the computer and sent report to the Bank that 18 candidates were suspected to have used unfair means. The authority concerned then sent for the chart of seating arrangement and treated the same as a piece of evidence for coming to the conclusion that the private respondents had indeed used unfair means in the examination. This exercise was not preceded by an inquiry involving the private respondents and no opportunity was given to them to defend themselves against the charge of use of unfair means. In other words, they were condemned unheard which, in our considered view, was legally impermissible."68 Item No. 22
Court-2 OA No. 3279/2018 and batch
22. In the case of Sandeep Kumar vs. GB Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology Ghurdauri and ors., in paragraph 18, the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled as under:
"18. On a bare perusal of the termination letter dated 19th May, 2022, it becomes apparent that the decision to terminate the services of the appellant from the post of Registrar was not preceded by any opportunity to show cause or any sort of disciplinary proceedings. The enquiry as referred to in the termination letter was in relation to the qualifications of the appellant for being appointed on the post of Registrar. The letter further indicates that the selection to the post of Registrar was not approved by the Board of Governors in its 26th meeting dated 16th June, 2018. The said observation in the letter dated 19th May, 2022 is totally erroneous and contradicted by the minutes of the meeting dated 16th June, 2018.(reproduced supra)"
23. This Bench of the Tribunal after considering a catena of cases has passed an order dated 28.07.2023 in OA No. 4727/2015 titled Manjeet Singh vs. UOI &Ors. and in paragraphs 8-12 has held as under:
"8. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Vijayakumaran C.P.V. (supra) has further been considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a recent decision in Nina Lath Gupta v. Union of India, 2023:DHC:2944. The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows:
"29. Another judgment, which needs a mention and is close on facts, is in the case of Dr. Vijayakumaran C.P.V. v. Central University of Kerala and Others, (2020) 12 SCC 426, wherein the Supreme Court observed that the termination order was issued in the backdrop of Internal Complaints Committee Report and going by the terms and tenor of the order, it was incomprehensible to construe such an order to be an order simplicitor when the report of the Inquiry Committee was the foundation. The Supreme Court also reiterated the position of law that the material which amounts to stigma need not be contained in the termination order and may be in any document referred to therein, which reference will inevitably effect the future prospects of the incumbent and if so, 69 Item No. 22 Court-2 OA No. 3279/2018 and batch the order must be construed as an ex facie stigmatic order of termination."
9. From the aforesaid judgment it stands settled that each and every case has to be considered in the light of the facts and circumstances of case, of course, broadly keeping in view the factors as recorded in the said judgment to find out whether the termination of an employee is punitive or not? It also stands settled that while deciding whether the termination of a probationer is a termination simpliciter or punitive, the Tribunal can travel beyond the order of termination to find out what in reality weighed with the employer to terminate the services of the probationer.
10. From the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Nina Lath Gupta (supra) it is settled that even if the order of termination of the probationer, on the face of it, appears to be innocuous and or order simpliciter, however, if the attending circumstances, more particularly the stand taken in the counter-affidavit, the conclusion was irresistible that the order was penal in nature and since the penalty was imposed without affording an opportunity to meet the charge, the order was not sustainable in the eyes of law.
11. Further, we are of the considered opinion that the issue raised in the instant case is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Tribunal in Satyendra (supra) and as such the directions given therein are mutatis mutandis applicable to the facts of the present case. We, therefore, follow the same.
12. In the aforesaid background, even if it is assumed that the impugned order of termination dated 04.08.2015 is an order simpliciter, however, in view of the specific stand taken by the respondents in the counter-reply, precisely recorded hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the impugned order of termination is founded on an act of specific misconduct of applicant and, therefore, the impugned order is found to be punitive and stigmatic. The same being passed without holding an enquiry and without following the principles of natural justice is not sustainable in the eyes of law. We, therefore, hold that the impugned termination order is not an order simpliciter but ex-facie stigmatic, keeping in view the stand taken by the respondents in the counter-reply.
24. In view of the aforesaid, the captioned OAs are allowed with the following order(s):
(i) the impugned notice(s) dated 23.08.2018 are set aside
(ii) the applicants shall be entitled for consequential benefits in accordance with law, relevant rules and instructions on the subject 70 Item No. 22 Court-2 OA No. 3279/2018 and batch
(iii) the aforesaid exercise shall be complied with by the respondents as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order
(iv) the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed against the applicants, if so advised, of course in accordance with law
25. Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
26. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Sanjeeva Kumar) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/NS/
71