Delhi High Court - Orders
Jagbir Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 March, 2021
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Amit Bansal
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3491/2021
JAGBIR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Aman Mudgal, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Rajendra Sahu, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
ORDER
% 17.03.2021 C.M. Nos. 10549-50/2021 (both for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules.
2. The applications are disposed of.
W.P.(C) 3491/2021
3. The petition impugns the order dated 17th December, 2020, of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, of dismissal in limine of O.A No. 2088/2020 preferred by the petitioner.
4. The petitioner was a Gramin Dak Sewak in the Department of Posts. He was put off duty on 17th February, 1994, but for a period of 9 years, not charge sheeted. After 9 years, he was charge sheeted, disciplinary enquiry held and the order of dismissal from service of the petitioner passed on 19 th March, 2008. The departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed on 26th March, 2010. The petitioner preferred O.A. No. 1214/2011 which was allowed vide order dated 2nd April, 2013; the operative part of the said order, at page 61 of the file, is as under:
W.P.(C) 3491/2021 page 1 of 4 Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:MEENAKSHI PANT Signing Date:09.04.2021 16:26:08 "12. In view of the above position, this OA is allowed. Consequently, as prayed for by the Applicant, we direct the Respondents to regularize the period of put off duty as spent on duty for all purposes excluding payment of arrears of Time Related Continuity Allowance. Further, we quash and set aside the impugned Annexure A-1 order dated 29.03.2008 removing the Applicant from service and the Annexure A-2 order of the Appellate Authority dated 26.03.2010 rejecting his appeal with all consequential benefits. The Respondents shall, therefore, reinstate the Applicant in service, forthwith from the date he was put off duty with continuity in service. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs."
5. The writ petition preferred by the respondents against the aforesaid order of CAT, was dismissed vide judgment dated 10th August, 2016.
6. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 11th August, 2017 and on 28th September, 2018, promoted to the post of Multi Task Staff (MTS).
7. The petitioner sought ante dating of his promotion, with effect from date his batch mates were promoted and which promotion has been denied to him for the reason of the aforesaid disciplinary proceedings which ended in favour of the petitioner. On the said relief being not granted, the petitioner filed the aforesaid O.A. No. 2088/2020, from dismissal whereof this petition arises.
8. CAT, in the impugned order has reasoned that (i) the order dated 2nd April, 2013 of CAT in O.A. No. 1214/2011 earlier preferred by the petitioner, attained finality when the writ petition preferred thereagainst was dismissed on 10th August, 2016; (ii) the said order was implemented by the W.P.(C) 3491/2021 page 2 of 4 Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:MEENAKSHI PANT Signing Date:09.04.2021 16:26:08 respondents, by reinstating the petitioner; (iii) the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held on 13th June, 2018, considered the case of the petitioner and the petitioner was selected for recruitment to the cadre of MTS; (iv) no other consequential benefits, as are being sought now by the petitioner in the second O.A No. 2088/2020, had been granted to the petitioner in the order dated 2nd April, 2013 in the earlier O.A.; (v) no direction for grant of any consequential benefits including notional promotion was granted by CAT in the order dated 2nd April, 2013 in the earlier O.A. preferred by the petitioner; (vi) on the respondents not reinstating the petitioner in spite of dismissal of the writ petition aforesaid, though the petitioner had filed a contempt petition in CAT but the said contempt petition was also closed vide order dated 18th September, 2017, clearly stating that the order of the Tribunal had been complied with; and,
(vii) the claim of the petitioner for notional promotion and back dated wages was thus not tenable.
9. We are afraid the reasoning given by the CAT in the impugned order is inconsistent with the direction in the order dated 2nd April, 2013 in the earlier O.A. preferred by the petitioner and as per which direction, the petitioner was reinstated in service, forthwith from the date he was put off duty, with continuity in service, for all purposes, excluding payment of arrears of Time Related Continuity Allowance. Therefrom it appears that when the order dated 2nd April, 2013 of CAT held the petitioner entitled to all consequential benefits, the same would include promotion, especially when the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were set aside unequivocally; the petitioner, in compliance thereof, has to be restored to the W.P.(C) 3491/2021 page 3 of 4 Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:MEENAKSHI PANT Signing Date:09.04.2021 16:26:08 same position as if the same had not taken place. Reliance can be placed on Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman (1991) 4 SCC 109, Gurpal Singh Vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan (2012) 13 SCC 94 and Government of NCT of Delhi Vs. Kuldeep Singh 2013 SCC OnLine Del 2957.
10. We have however enquired from the counsel for the respondents, whether at the time when the batch mates of the petitioner were promoted and which is stated to be in the year of 2013, any sealed cover procedure for holding DPC qua the petitioner, then under disciplinary proceedings, was followed.
11. There is nothing on record on this aspect, the O.A. having been dismissed in limine.
12. It is deemed appropriate to grant opportunity to the respondents to take instructions on this limited aspect; if the DPC was not held at all, the benefit thereof would go to the petitioner and if the DPC was held and the petitioner was not found eligible for promotion, the petitioner cannot get the relief.
13. List for the said limited purpose on 12th May, 2021.
14. Affidavit limited to the aforesaid aspect, if required to be filed, be also filed.
15. We make it clear that the petitioner is not claiming any arrears of salary and is only claiming notional promotion from the date his batch mates were promoted.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J AMIT BANSAL, J MARCH 17, 2021 / SU..
W.P.(C) 3491/2021 page 4 of 4 Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:MEENAKSHI PANT Signing Date:09.04.2021 16:26:08