Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Munish Kumar S/O Shri Ram Kishore vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 31 January, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A.No.1369/2011
Tuesday, this the 31st day of January 2012
Honble Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J)
Honble Mrs. Manjulika Gautam, Member (A)
1. Shri Munish Kumar s/o Shri Ram Kishore
r/o B-4/14, Ashok Vihar,
Phase II, Delhi-52
2. Shri Horender Kumar s/o late Shri Damodar Dass
r/o Quarter No.8, Type IV
Varun Kunj, Delhi Jal Board Staff
Rohini, Delhi-85
3. Shri Vijay Sagar s/o Shri N L Sagar
r/o B-35, Flat No.3, East Jyoti Nagar
Near Amar Sanitary Store, Delhi-93
4. Shri D K Kashyap s/o Shri Ajit Lal
r/o 3B/GH-10, Sunder Apptt
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi
5. Shri Vinod Kumar s/o Shri Hari Chand
r/o Z-53, Dyal Sir Road
Near West Metro Station
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-59
6. Shri L K Verma s/o Shri Y R Singh
r/o E-26, Shiv Lok Apptt
Plot No.6, Sector 6, Dwarka, New Delhi-75
..Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj)
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi through
1. The Chief Secretary
Delhi Secretariat,
Players Building, ITO, New Delhi
2. Chief Executive Officer
Delhi Jal Board
Varunalay Bhawan
Phase-II, Karol Bagh, New Delhi
3. Member (Admn.), Delhi Jal Board
Varunalay Bhawan
Jhandewalan, Phase-II,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi
4. Bhagmal Singh, AE (Civil)
Delhi Jal Board
Varunalay Bhawan
Jhandewalan, New Delhi
5. Radhey Shyam, AE (Civil)
Delhi Jal Board
Varunalay Bhawan
Jhandewalan, New Delhi
6. Mahender Kumar, AE (Civil)
Delhi Jal Board
Varunalay Bhawan
Jhandewalan, New Delhi
7. Y R S Raju, AE (Civil)
Delhi Jal Board
Varunalay Bhawan
Jhandewalan, New Delhi
8. IC Mogha, AE (Civil)
Delhi Jal Board
Varunalay Bhawan
Jhandewalan, New Delhi
9. Ratan Pal Singh, AE (Civil)
Delhi Jal Board
Varunalay Bhawan
Jhandewalan, New Delhi
10. Harish Chander, AE (Civil)
Delhi Jal Board
Varunalay Bhawan
Jhandewalan, New Delhi
11. Adarsh Kumar, AE (Civil)
Delhi Jal Board
Varunalay Bhawan
Jhandewalan, New Delhi
12. B S Rawat, AE (Civil)
Delhi Jal Board
Varunalay Bhawan
Jhandewalan, New Delhi
13. O P Gaud, AE (Civil)
Delhi Jal Board
Varunalay Bhawan
Jhandewalan, New Delhi
14. L L Meena, AE (Civil)
Delhi Jal Board
Varunalay Bhawan
Jhandewalan, New Delhi
15. B L Kuru, AE (Civil)
Delhi Jal Board
Varunalay Bhawan
Jhandewalan, New Delhi
..Respondents
(By Advocates: None for Respondent 1,
Mr. Nishakant Pandey for respondent Nos.2 & 3,
Mr. Sushant K Thakur with Mr. Ashwani Kumar for Respondent No.4,
Mr. Pradeep Kumar for respondent Nos.5, 8 to 11 and
Mr.Anagha S Desai with Mr. Somnath Poddar for respondent Nos. 12 to 15)
O R D E R (ORAL)
Mr. M L Chauhan:
The applicants have filed the present OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs:
i) That the Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to declare the action of respondents no.1 to 2A in giving respondent no.4 to 15 benefits or reservation meant for SC and ST as illegal and unconstitutional.
ii) To quash and set-aside the impugned seniority list dated 27/31.08.2010 issued vide circular no.DJB/AC/(T)/AE (Civil)/SEN/10/87037.
iii) To direct the respondents to act as per the law declared by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Subhash Chandra & Anr. Vs. DSSSB & Ors.(2009) 15 SCC 458 and MCD & Ors Vs Veena.
iv) To declare the appointments of respondents No.4 to 15 as illegal being ineligible for appointment against reserved for SC and ST of Delhi State.
v) To allow the O.A. with costs.
vi) Any other relief which the Honble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant.
2. The grievance of the applicants in this OA is regarding illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional act of the official respondents in making promotion and giving seniority to SC/ST candidates contrary to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Subhash Chandra & another v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & others, (2009) 15 SCC 458 wherein it has been held that the SC/ST candidates in one State cannot get benefit in other State.
3. It may also be stated here that this Tribunal in A.K. Awasthi & others v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & others (OA-2181/2010) decided on 7.9.2010 has allowed the OA based upon the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Subhash Chandra. The applicants have placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal, referred to above, for the purpose of granting relief to them.
4. Notice of this application was given to the official as well as private respondents. The respondent-Delhi Jal Board as well as private respondents have filed their separate replies. In the reply filed on behalf of Delhi Jal Board, it has been stated that the judgment delivered by this Tribunal in the case of A.K. Awasthi (supra) has been stayed by the High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No.1513/2011 vide order dated 8.3.2011 and the same is pending adjudication. It has further been stated that after the decision in the above case, none of the private respondents or any of the migrant SC/ST officials have been promoted.
5. The applicants have filed the rejoinder affidavit, thereby placing reliance upon another judgment of the High Court of Delhi in DSSSB & another v. Mukesh Kumar & others (WP (C) No.610/2011 with connected WPs) decided on 25.7.2011, which judgment has been rendered placing reliance upon the decisions of the Apex Court in Subhash Chandras case (supra) and Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College & others, (1990) 3 SCC 130.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
7. It may be relevant to mention here that the question as to whether a person belonging to SC category of one State would be entitled or not to the benefit of concession allowed to SC candidate in the matter of employment in other State, has been referred to the Larger Bench by the Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Sandeep Kumar Singh & others, JT 2010 (11) SC 140, as the Honble Bench was of the view that two-Judge Bench in Subhash Chandras case (supra) could not have commented upon the decision of three-Judge decision in S Pushpa & others v. Sivachanmugavelu & others, JT 2005 (2) SC 137, which has also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Raos case (supra) and understood the ratio of those judgments in a particular manner.
8. Since the Apex Court is seized of the matter, we are of the view that no relief can be granted to the applicants herein based upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Subhash Chandras case (supra). Accordingly, we are of the view that instead of adjourning the matter sine die, the present OA can be disposed of at this stage with liberty reserve to the applicants to either file fresh OA or to move an application for revival of this OA in case the Larger Bench in the case of Sandeep Kumar Singh (supra) decides the issue in their favour.
9. In view of what has been stated above, the OA shall stand disposed of. No costs.
( Mrs. Manjulika Gautam ) ( M L Chauhan ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/