Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sushil Kumar Ojha vs Govt. Of Nctd on 29 March, 2023
1 OA No. 2543/2015
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
OA No. 2543/2015
Order reserved on: 18.01.2023
Order pronounced on: 29.03.2023
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
1. Sushil Kumar Ojha
S/o Sh. Kuber Dutt Ojha
Age 36 years
Post Physiotherapist
R/o Flat No.102-C, C-6A Block,
Janakpuri, New Delhi.
2. Sh. Santosh Kumar Singh
S/o Sh. Prabhunath Singh
Age 38 years
Post: Radiographer
R/o RZ-260-B-5, Jagdamba Vihar,
West Sagarpur, Delhi.
3. Sh. Vinay Verma,
S/o Late Sh. Harish Kumar
Age 31 years
Post: Physiotherapist
R/o D-481, Plot no.1/1A, Gali No.7
Gautam Colony behind Police Station
Narela, New Delhi.
4. Sh. Prashanta Biswas
S/o Sh. Shanti Ranjan,
Age 36 years
Post: Radiographer
R/o 54, Agrahakunj Apptt.
Sector 13, Rohini, Delhi-85.
....Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. S.N.Gupta)
2 OA No. 2543/2015
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT Delhi,
Through its Secretary,
Family and Health Welfare,
New Sachivalaya, ITO
New Delhi.
2. Director General of Prison,
PHQ, Central Jail,
Tihar Jail, New Delhi-110064
3. Ms. Chanchal Saini,
Date of Joining: 11.12.2012
R/o House No.RZF-728-A
Raj Nagar, Part-II, Palam Colony,
New Delhi.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Yadav)
ORDER
By Hon'ble Manish Garg, Member (J) The present O.A. has been filed by four applicants seeking regularisation of their services on the analogy of benefit of such a regularisation given to certain identically placed persons.
2. The reliefs as sought for by the applicants are as follows:
―(i) Quash the order dated 3.6.15 (Annexure X) and direct the respondents to declare the applicants as deemed regular appointee and consider the applicants for confirmation on the various posts as held by them on the basis of their service record with all consequential benefits and prepare a scheme within time framed whereby giving scale of pay as are available to regular Govt. employees depending upon their qualifications and experience considering the ratio of the judgement dated 6.7.2001 of the Hon'ble CAT & 6.9.2010 confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court with a direction to frame the scheme for their regularization which later on confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.3 OA No. 2543/2015
(ii) To direct the respondents to evolve the scheme of regularization of the applicants and such appointees in the spirit of, the earlier directions issued by the various Hon'ble High Court especially the direction issued vide judgement dated 16.9.2010 and Sonia Gandhi's case dated 6.11.2013 as well as on the basis of the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in various O.A.
(iii) To restrain the respondents from terminating the services of the applicants till the pendency of this O.A.
(iv) grant any other or further relief which Hon'ble Tribunal may consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.‖
3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants were engaged to perform the duties of Physiothearpist/ Radiographer in Tihar Jail on different dates from the year 2005 onwards. They continued to perform such duties since the date of their engagement. However, despite continuing an uninterrupted engagement, benefit of regular appointment to them was not extended. Meanwhile, certain identically placed employees who too were working on similar positions as Laboratory Technician/ Radiographer at the Central Jail, Tihar, preferred O.A(s) before this Tribunal seeking regular appointment on the ground that they had been continuously working on such positions for several years and were facing discrimination on account of paltry wages paid to them. It was also alleged in those O.A(s) that just to circumvent the possibility of the applicants seeking regular appointment, their appointment/ engagement was being shown under the 4 OA No. 2543/2015 facade of a Non Governmental Organization. Accordingly, the Tribunal had held as under:
―16. I am now left with the consideration of the relief sought by the applicants in these OAs. I find that the relief sought is for a direction to the respondents to prepare a scheme within a given time frame whereby regular pay scales are made available to the applicants having regard to their qualifications etc. The further relief sought is grant of benefit to the applicants, after the scheme has been framed and the applicants have been regularly employed thereunder, with effect from the respective dates from which they have been working as NGO-LTs etc. After a careful consideration of the matter and in view of what has been held by me in the preceding paragraphs, I am inclined to grant the aforesaid relief. The respondents are accordingly directed carefully to assess the additional number of posts of LTs etc. required to carry on the work of their organisation efficiently and thereafter to frame a proper scheme within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order for absorption/regular employment of the applicants on posts, the duties and responsibilities of which they have been discharging over the years, keeping in view the qualifications possessed and the experience gained by them. Since most of the applicants having already served for four to five years or even more likely to have crossed the maximum age of recruitment to the aforesaid posts, the aforesaid scheme to be framed by the respondents will contain a relaxation clause to enable the applicants to be considered for regular appointment as and when the scheme is framed/ implemented. If the applicants are found fit to be regularly appointed in accordance with the aforesaid scheme, the respondents will make payments of arrears to them in respect of the past services rendered in accordance with 2 regular pay scales, needless to say, subject to the provisions of the law of limitation.
17. The OAs are disposed of in the aforestated terms. There shall be no order as to costs.‖
4. The said order of the Tribunal was challenged by way of a number of Writ Petitions which were disposed of by a common order, the lead one being W.P. (C) No. 18442/2004 titled Subodh Kumar & Ors. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide order dated 16.09.2010. It would be worthwhile to quote the relevant extract of the said judgment:
5 OA No. 2543/2015
―23. Thus, noting the continued employment of many claimants, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra) directions can be issued to the Government of NCT Delhi, as a onetime measure, to frame a suitable scheme to consider regular recruitment of such applicants of OA No.1479/2000, OA No. 1523/2000, OA No. 1534/2000 and OA No.1560/2000 who are still working at Tihar Jail.
24. As regards wages, we note that the issue of regularization of service and payment of wages has no co-relation. One may not be a regular employee but that would not mean that the State can exploit its citizens and take benefit of the mismatch between demand and supply in employment. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has been recognized even in Uma Devi (supra) as per which directions can be issued that wages in the minimum of the scale should be paid and not daily wage.
25. We dispose of all the writ petitions directing the Government of NCT Delhi to, as a one-time measure, frame a suitable scheme to consider regular recruitment of such applicants of OA No.1479/2000, OA No.1523/2000, OA No.1534/2000 and OA No.1560/2000 who are still working at Tihar Jail and while so doing give benefit of age relaxation.
The scheme would duly take note of the fact that Tihar Jail is under-staffed. Till the scheme is prepared and implemented such daily wage Laboratory Technicians/Radiographers who are working at Tihar Jail would be paid salary in the minimum of the scale in which regularly appointed Laboratory Technicians/ Radiographers are placed. We further direct that such of the applicants of OA No.1479/2000, OA No.1523/2000, OA No.1534/2000 and OA No.1560/2000 who are still working at Tihar Jail and also Subodh Kumar and Naveen Kumar be paid wages in the minimum of the scale applicable from time to time to the post of Laboratory Technician/Radiographer for the past period of service rendered by them reckoned from the date the Tribunal issued directions in their favour i.e. 6.7.2001 and while so doing the daily wage received by them under the label of travelling allowance be adjusted. We clarify that such applicants of OA No.1479/2000, OA No.1523/2000, OA No. 1534/2000 and OA No.1560/2000 who have left employment and are not working (except Subodh Kumar and Naveen Kumar), would not be entitled to the benefit of directions issued by us. An exception needs to be carved out qua Sohan Lal on the issue of wages payable to him. Noting that he is an Ex-Serviceman and receiving pension, while determining back wages payable to him with effect from 6.7.2001, in addition to the daily wage received by him as travelling allowance, pension received by him would also be adjusted.
26. Needful would be done within 6 months from today.‖ 6 OA No. 2543/2015
5. The said order of the Hon'ble High Court was put to challenge in an SLP without success. The Review Petition too also got to be dismissed. Thus, learned counsel for the applicant argues that the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court has attained finality. He argues that the fact as enunciated in the O.A. as also the circumstances of the present applicants bear a striking similarity to the O.A(s) which were the subject of the aforequoted Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
6. Drawing attention to the documents he has annexed with the O.A., specifically, Anenxure - A (colly), B and C. He submits that it is conclusively established that the applicants were appointed with the approval of the DG (Prisons) and assigned duties of Physiothearpy/ Radiography.
7. He also points out the contradictions in the various letters of appointment/ placement, submitting that some were appointed on daily wages, some were on what is called a conveyance charge and in some cases, there is no mention of the remuneration and some on salary basis.
8. However, what is not disputed is that they were appointed and had been working as such on a regular basis. He draws attention to a document placed at Page 36 of the O.A. which is an office order giving regular appointment to 7 OA No. 2543/2015 four identically placed persons pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court referred to above.
9. He reiterates that since there is no difference in the circumstances of the present applicants from the ones who had agitated the matter in the earlier O.A(s) and were party to the Writ Petitions in the Hon'ble High Court. The respondents cannot escape providing identical reliefs to the applicants. He further argues that in terms of unambiguous directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the respondents were to frame a suitable scheme to consider regular recruitment of the applicants in the O.A(s) by giving them the benefit of age relaxation. He further submits that the Hon'ble High Court had also directed that such scheme would duly take note of the fact that Tihar Jail is understaffed and that till such a scheme is prepared and implemented, the daily wage Laboratory Technicians/ Radiographers would be paid salary in accordance with the scale governing the said positions.
10. He argues that while the respondents have given appointment to the persons who approached the Tribunal earlier and who were party in the Writ Petitions, they have not framed an appropriate scheme which could consider the claim of other similarly placed persons such as the present applicants.
8 OA No. 2543/2015
11. Learned counsel concludes his arguments by submitting that what the applicants are seeking by way of present O.A. is a decision on their claim strictly in the light of Subodh Kumar (supra) case decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel also draws attention to para 22 of the judgment of passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 6798/2022 Sonia Gandhi and Ors. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
12. Accordingly, he seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 03.06.2015 vide which the representation of the applicants ventilating their grievance has been rejected.
13. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand argues that a bare reading of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court would indicate that the relief was given only to such applicants who were party in the O.A(s) which were the subject of the Writ Petition.
14. Drawing attention to the directions of the Hon'ble High Court in para 25, he submits that there should be no doubt that as a one time measure, the Hon'ble High Court has directed that the applicants in four O.A(s) which were the subject of the Writ Petitions before the Hon'ble High Court, be considered for regularisation. The relief being specific to the 9 OA No. 2543/2015 persons, cannot be extended to the applicants in the present O.A. as they had not agitated the same before the Hon'ble High Court nor did the applicants approach the judicial forum well in time.
15. He further argues that appointment is made strictly in accordance with the recruitment rules. Any relief to the present applicants by way of agreeing to their prayer would amount to an appointment in contravention to such rules, by ignoring merit, and against the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi. Vs. State of Karnataka, (2006) 4 SCC 1.
16. He further argues that on innumerable occasions, various High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court have strictly frowned upon such back door appointments. He draws attention to the additional affidavit dated 29.03.2022, detailing his objections and contentions particularly paras 1, 3 and 4. For the sake of clarity, the said paras are reproduced below :
―1. That, it is pertinent to mentions that in WP(C) 18442/2004 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi categorically directed as follow:
Para No 25 ―The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi directed the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, as a onetime measure to frame a suitable scheme to consider regular recruitment of such applicants of OA No 1479/2000, 1523/200, 1534/2000 and1560/200....". This refers that the onetime measure was only restricted to the parties related to the OA No 2000 only. The present applicants neither the 10 OA No. 2543/2015 party in the said referred OA nor were the part to the said Writ Petition. Even the applicants behaved inadvertently during that time and never approached to the courts or departments with such request as confronted in the present O.A.
2. Accordingly, in reference to the directions a proposal dated 13.05.2015 in respect of such application in the above cited O.A. was forwarded to the Home Department, GNCT of Delhi as one time measure for their appointment against the vacant post of Radiographer and Lab Technician.
3. That in reference to the proposal dated 13.05.2015 the approval of Hon'ble Lt. Governor, Delhi was duly conveyed by the Home Department, GNCT of Delhi vide reference No F9/101/2004/HG/3000 dated 06.07.2015 vide which the Hon'ble Lt. Governor approved the proposal for relaxation in age and education qualification, as per RRs for appointment of such applicants only of the then above referred OAs Tihar subject to the following conditions.
(a) The candidates should undergo 3 months training (full time) in Govt. Hospital (Deen Dayal Hospital) in this case being nearest), with certification of skill level at the end of its, for the one without even diploma. Training would be extended for 06 months followed by certification.
(b) Action regarding fixing of responsibility on erring officials should be completed in a month and Hon'ble Lt. Governor, Delhi may be appraised accordingly. It may be mentioned that these direction and instructions are not meant for the applicants of the present O.A. A copy of the said letter F9/101/2004/HG/3000 dated 06.07.2015 is enclosed herewith marked as Annexure-A.‖
17. He further submits that the wages/ emoluments of the applicants were being paid through the Prisoners Welfare Fund or some miscellaneous funds and not from the government exchequer or the Consolidated Fund of India which clearly indicates that they were engaged on casual basis for specific tasks and by no stretch of imagination, can it be deemed to be an appointment to a civil post of a regular nature.11 OA No. 2543/2015
18. He reiterates that the entire case of the applicants hinges upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Subodh Kumar (supra) case, whereas the relief in that matter was specific to the persons who were party in the Writ Petitions and the judgment passed in that case cannot be quoted as a law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court.
19. We have heard the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the voluminous documents on record. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that they have nothing more to add.
20. Analysis:
20.1 Perusal of the above facts narrated, it would be apt to say that present case is also classic case of indifferent attitude wherein, the applicants have to suffer apathy met out of inaction on the part of State instrumentality. We are once again reminded of Preamble of our Constitution that is to say, we ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION:
―WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:12 OA No. 2543/2015
JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation; At the same time we cannot lose sight to the fact, The Constituent Assembly debated the Preamble on 17th October 1949. The debates around the Preamble revolved around the name of India and inclusion of 'God' and 'Gandhi'.
One member urged the Assembly to rename India as the 'Union of Indian Socialistic Republics', similar to the USSR. Members were not convinced with this suggestion as they felt that it would go against the already adopted constitutional scheme. Another member sought to include 'In the name of God'.
Many were opposed to this suggestion - it was noted that it was unfortunate to put ‗God' on vote. One member believed that inclusion of 'God' would amount to ‗compulsion of faith' and violate the fundamental right to freedom of faith.
Another proposal was made to include Gandhi's name in the Preamble. A member was discontent with the already adopted draft articles as he felt that the Indian constitution was based on the American Supreme Court cases and Government of India Act. 13 OA No. 2543/2015
He opposed any association of Gandhi with the 'rotten Constitution'.
The amendments moved by the members were negatived. However, this was one of the rare instances of the Assembly proceedings wherein the members voted on the proposal to include 'God' by a show of hands. The Assembly was divided with 41 voting in favour and 68 voting against it. The Assembly adopted the Preamble as presented by the Drafting Committee.
20.2 What we are concerned in the present matter is the word Socialist, before the term was added by the 42nd Amendment in 1976, the Constitution had socialist content in the form of certain Directive Principles of State Policy. The term socialist used here refers to democratic socialism, i.e. achievement of socialist goals through democratic, evolutionary and non-violent means. Essentially, it means that (since wealth is generated socially) wealth should be shared equally by society through distributive justice, not concentrated in the hands of few, and that the government should regulate the ownership of land and industry to reduce socio-economic inequalities.
(1) The word "Justice" stands for rule of law, absence of arbitrariness and a system of equal rights, freedom and 14 OA No. 2543/2015 opportunities for all in a society. India seeks social, economic and political justice to ensure equality to its citizens.
(i) Social Justice:
Social Justice means the absence of socially privileged classes in the society and no discrimination against any citizen on grounds of caste, creed, color, religion, gender or place of birth. India stands for eliminating all forms of exploitations from the society.
(ii) Economic Justice:
Economic Justice means no discrimination between man and woman on the basis of income, wealth and economic status. It stands for equitable distribution of wealth, economic equalities, the end of monopolistic control over means of production and distribution, decentralisation of economic resources, and the securing of adequate opportunities to all for earning their living.
(iii) Political Justice:
Political justice means equal, free and fair opportunities to the people for participation in the political process. It stands for the grant of equal political rights to all the people without discrimination. The Constitution of India provides for a liberal democracy in which all the people have the right and freedom to participate.
(2) The term "Equality" means the absence of special privilege to any section of society, and the provision of adequate opportunity of all the individuals without any discrimination.
(3) The word "Fraternity" refers to a feeling of brotherhood and sisterhood and a sense of belonging with the country among its people.15 OA No. 2543/2015
The Preamble declares that fraternity has to assure two things--the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation. The word 'integrity' has been added to the Preamble by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment (1976).
In Republic Form of Government have we not transgressed, the powers which have been bestowed upon the a government where no one holds public power as a proprietary right and all public offices are open to every citizen without discrimination.
21. In the present facts of the case it was incumbent upon the respondents to frame the policy in terms of para 25 of the judgment in Subodh Kumar (supra). Rather, it can be seen contrary to our own Preamble, the respondents instead of framing a policy ended up with ―Pick and Choose Policy‖. Till date the said policy has not seen light of the day to the reasons unexplained and best known to the respondents. In action on the respondents for not framing policy at relevant point is nothing but short of contemptuous act on their part and dereliction of their duty in holding public office.
22. It would also be reiterated what was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No 1109 of 2020
- Lt. Col. Nitisha & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors., decided on 25.03.2021 as under:-
16 OA No. 2543/2015
"110 We also must express our anguish at the respondents' failure to implement the judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court in 2010, whose operation was specifically not stayed by this Court in 2011. The conundrum on the applicability of the medical criterion to WSSCOs who are 40-50 years old, has arisen only because of the Army not having implemented its decision in time, despite the course correction prescribed by the Delhi High Court in 2010. The WSSCOs, a few of whom are petitioners before us today, have persevered for over a decade to gain the same dignity of an equal opportunity at PC. The fact that only around 35 women who are otherwise fit for PC, and 31 women who do not qualify in addition to not meeting the medical criteria, is irrelevant in determining whether each of these women is entitled to equality of opportunity in matters of public PART G employment under Article 16(1) and (2). As observed by a 9 judge bench of this Court in Justice KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India,86 a de minimis rationale is not a permissible exception to invasion of fundamental rights. The Court, speaking through one of us (Chandrachud, J.) had held that "the de minimis hypothesis is misplaced because the invasion of a fundamental right is not rendered tolerable when a few, as opposed to a large number of persons, are subjected to hostile treatment."87 Similarly, the percentage of women who have suffered as a consequence of the belated application of rigorous medical criteria is irrelevant to the determination of whether it is a violation of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution."
23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hari Nandan Prasad and another vs. Employer I/R to Mangmt. of FCI and another, decided on 17 February, 2014, held as follows:-
―34. On harmonious reading of the two judgments discussed in detail above, we are of the opinion that when there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice the Labour Court would not give direction for regularization only because a worker has continued as daily wage worker/adhoc/temporary worker for number of years. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for regularization would be impermissible. In the aforesaid 17 OA No. 2543/2015 circumstances giving of direction to regularize such a person, only on the basis of number of years put in by such a worker as daily wager etc. may amount to backdoor entry into the service which is an anathema to Art.14 of the Constitution. Further, such a direction would not be given when the concerned worker does not meet the eligibility requirement of the post in question as per the Recruitment Rules. However, wherever it is found that similarly situated workmen are regularized by the employer itself under some scheme or otherwise and the workmen in question who have approached Industrial/Labour Court are at par with them, direction of regularization in such cases may be legally justified, otherwise, non-regularization of the left over workers itself would amount to invidious discrimination qua them in such cases and would be violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. Thus, the Industrial adjudicator would be achieving the equality by upholding Art. 14, rather than violating this constitutional provision.
35. The aforesaid examples are only illustrated. It would depend on the facts of each case as to whether order of regularization is necessitated to advance justice or it has to be denied if giving of such a direction infringes upon the employer's rights
36. In the aforesaid backdrop, we revert the facts of the present case. The grievance of the appellants was that under the Scheme contained in Circular dated 6.5.1997 many similarly placed workmen have been regularized and, therefore, they were also entitled to this benefit. It is argued that those who had rendered 240 days service were regularized as per the provision in that Scheme/Circular dated 6.5.1987.
37. On consideration of the cases before us we find that appellant No.1 was not in service on the date when Scheme was promulgated i.e. as on 6.5.1987 as his services were dispensed with 4 years before that Circular saw the light of the day. Therefore, in our view, the relief of monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement would be more appropriate in his case and the conclusion in the impugned judgment qua him is unassailable, though for the difficult reasons (as recorded by us above) than those advanced by the High Court. However, in so far as appellant No.2 is concerned, he was engaged on 5.9.1986 and continued till 15.9.1990 when his services were terminated. He even raised the Industrial dispute immediately thereafter. Thus, when the Circular dated 5.9.1987 was issued, he was in service and within few months of the issuing of that Circular he had completed 240 days of service.
38. Non-regularization of appellant No.2, while giving the benefit of that Circular dated 6.5.1987 to other similar situated employees and regularizing them would, therefore, be clearly discriminatory. On these facts, the CGIT rightly held that he was entitled to the benefit of scheme contained in Circular dated 6.5.1987. The Division Bench in the 18 OA No. 2543/2015 impugned judgment has failed to notice this pertinent and material fact which turns the scales in favour of appellant No.2. High Court committed error in reversing the direction given by the CGIT, which was rightly affirmed by the learned Single Judge as well, to reinstate appellant No.2 with 50% back wages and to regularize him in service. He was entitled to get his case considered in terms of that Circular. Had it been done, probably he would have been regularized. Instead, his services were wrongly and illegally terminated in the year 1990. As an upshot of the aforesaid discussion, we allow these appeals partly. While dismissing the appeal qua appellant No.1, the same is accepted in so far as appellant No.2 is concerned. In his case, the judgment of the Division Bench is set aside and the award of the CGIT is restored.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs.‖
24. The contentions urged by the respondents in present case are just repetitive having already been repelled by the Hon'ble High Court in earlier round of litigation and same was also up-held by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
25. Conclusion:
25.1 We, therefore, set aside and quash the Impugned Order dated 03.06.2015 ( Annexure 1).
25.2 To put a quietus to the issue, it is deemed appropriate in fitness of the facts of the case by disposing of the present OA with directions as one time measure, the applicants' rights should be considered in realistic and positive manner with similarly situated persons who were afforded the appointment pursuant to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court in Subodh Kumar (supra) paras 24 and 25, which have already been reproduced above for the sake of brevity.19 OA No. 2543/2015
26. Needless, to say that the above directions have been passed in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as one time measure, and same shall not be construed to be a precedent. On passing appropriate order, the respondents shall issue offer of appointments to the applicants herein, who shall not be entitled to claim seniority and any arrears of salary.
27. The OA is disposed of with above directions with no order as to the costs.
(Manish Garg) (Tarun Shridhar) Member (J) Member (A) /sd/