Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Smt. Kiran Sharma vs Govt.Of Nct Of Delhi on 12 May, 2014
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi OA No. 1629/2014 MA.1416/2014 New Delhi this the 12th day of May, 2014 Honble Shri V. Ajay Kumar, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri V. N. Gaur, Member (Administrative) 1. Smt. Kiran Sharma, W/o Sh. Pankaj, R/o 7, Block-A, Gali No.4 Sewak Park New Delhi-110005 Protection Officer Age-32 years 2. Priti Saxena D/o Sh. J.K. Sharma R/o Plot No.26, Kasra No.14/10/ Natthu Colony, Nathu Pura Delhi-110084. Protection Officer Age-30 years 3. Kirti Dhaka D/o Sh. Jai Dev singh R/o H. No.79, Ashok Mohalla Nangloi Delhi. Protection Officer Age-31 years 4. Amita Rani W/o Amar Jeet R/o H No. B-924, MiG Flat East of Loni Road, Delhi Protection Officer Age-30 years 5. Jyoti Sirohi W/o Praveen Malik] R/o Flat No.330, Sec.19 Divya Jyoti Apartment, Rohini Delhi-85 Protection Officer Age-32 years 6. Neeraj Chauhan D/o sh. JagmalSingh R/o H No. 157, Dakha Village, Kingsway Camp, Delhi Protection Officer Age-33 years 7. Diksha D/o Sh. Ram Vilas R/o H No.14, Street No. 6, Wazirabad Delhi-84 Protection Officer Age-29 years 8. Neha Wali D/o Sh.Subhash Walia R/o H No.586, DDA Janta Flats GTB Enclave, Delhi Protection Officer Age-28 years 9. Madhu Manvi W/o Sh. Mukul Kumar R/o BQ-133 GF Pitam Pura, Delhi-34 Protection Officer Age-30years 10. Priti Mudgal W/o Sh. Praveen Kaushik R/o 131, Type-II Police Quarter Block-X, Idgah Road, Delhi Protection Officer Age-31years 11. Binita Bahuguna D/o sh. Late D.P. Bahuguna R/o H. No.328, Ground Gloor Gali No.9, Vill. Wazirabad, Delhi Protection Officer Age-31years 12. Sneh Yadav W/o Sh. Ravinder Kr.Yadav R/o C-5, 129, 129, Sec.6 Rohini Delhi Protection Officer Age-31years 13 Madhulika W/o Sh. Rakesh Negi R/o H. No. 49-A Street No. 4 West Karawal Nagar, Delhi Protection Officer Age-28years 14. Pooja W/o Avnit Singh R/o Shastri Nagar Gaziabad UP Protection Officer Age-31years 15. Archna Singh W/o Sh. Dhananjay Singh R/o H No.1 Flat No. 6, A-2 Block Street No.2, West Sant Nagar Delhi Protection Officer Age-33years 16. Babita D/o sh. Mohinder Singh R/o H. No.102, Vijay colony Bhawna Delhi -39 Protection Officer Age-31years 17. Tripti Kataria D/o Mahavir Kataria R/o H. No. RZ-1, Marsoodabad Ext. Nangloi Road Najafgarh, Delhi Protection Officer Age-31years 18. Shikha D/o Sh.Ashok Kumar Sharma, R/o A-10, NIHFW, Campus Munirka New Delhi-67 . Applicants (By Advocate: Shri Pankaj Kumar) VERSUS 1. Govt.of NCT of Delhi Through its Secretary Delhi Secretariat IP Estate New Delhi-02 2. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Deptt. of Social Welfare Through its Scretary GLNS Complex Delhi Gate New Delhi 3. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Deptt. of Women & Child Welfare Through its Secretary 1, Canning Lane Kasturaba Gandhi Marg New Delhi-01 .Respondents O R D E R (ORAL)
(By Honble Shri V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J):-
MA.1416/2014 filed under Rule 4 (5) (a) of the C.A.T. (Procedure), Rules, 1987, for joining together is allowed.
Heard the learned counsel the applicants.
2. It is submitted that all the applicants are working as Protection Officers under the scheme for Protection of Women under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on purely contract basis since 2007 under the respondent No.3, Department of Women & Child Welfare (Govt. of NCT of Delhi). The present OA is filed by the applicants questioning the order dated 25.4.2014, wherein it has been stated that the term of the applicant was extended upto 31.5.2014 and thereafter their services will not be extended, as the finance department has not concurred extension beyond the said period. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of the decision of the Honble High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 6.11.2013 in W.P.[C] No. 6798/2002 Sonia Gandhi & Ors vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., the applicants are entitled for regularization of their services and respondents be ordered that till their case for regularization is considered their services may not be terminated.
4. The Honble High Court of Delhi in its judgment in the case of Sonia Gandhi & Ors vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.(supra) considered the various issues pertaining to the contract employees working under the control of the respondents [Govt. of NCTD] including their continuance and regularization. The Honble High Court, in the said case (supra), after duly considering the constitution Benchs Judgment of the Honble Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi [(2006) 4 SCC-1] held as under:-
17.On the subject of regularization the undisputed position which emerges is that over the last two decades i.e. 20 years the Government of NCT of Delhi has not assessed the man power requirement in its various departments and offices resulting in large scale contract appointment being resorted to.
xx xx xx xx xx
22. Accordingly, we issue another direction and simultaneously dispose of the two writ petitions. The direction would be that the Government of NCT Delhi would carry out a manpower requirement assessment in all its departments keeping in view the fact that the population in Delhi has crossed 1.7 crore persons. Such number of posts shall be sanctioned as are necessary to provide services to the citizens of Delhi. A one time policy of regularization shall be framed and existing rules pertaining to service in different departments shall be amended. Existing contractual employees shall be considered for appointment to these new posts as per a policy framed.
xx xx xx xx
25. To summarize, the writ petitions stand disposed of issuing directions as per paragraphs 13, 16 and 22 above.
26. No costs.
5. The Honble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 2.5.2014 in Review Petition Nos. 198/2014 and 202/2014, while upholding the aforesaid order in Sonia Gandhi Case (supra), clarified the same as follows:-
5. It is apparent that our decision would relate to contract appointments concerning institutions established by the Government of Delhi. They would obviously not embrace such projects which are executed by the Government of NCT of Delhi under the centrally funded schemes.
6. In these circumstances, the present OA is disposed of, at the admission stage, without going into the other merits of the case, by permitting the applicants to make a comprehensive representation before the competent authority within two weeks from today and on receipt of such representation, the competent authority shall consider the same and pass an appropriate speaking and reasoned order thereon in terms of the judgment of the Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sonia Gandhi (supra), as clarified, vide its order dated 2.5.2014 in Review Petition Nos.198/2014 and 202/2014 (supra) within eight weeks, therefrom. Till then, the services of the applicants shall not be terminated. No order as to costs.
(V.N. Gaur) (V. Ajay Kumar) Member (A) Member (J) /mk/