Debananda Sahoo vs Union Of India And Ors

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant was selected as Assistant in the Central Secretariat Service in the examination conducted in the year 1984. He was assigned the rank of 140 and an order of appointment was issued to him on 09.03.1987. He realized that several candidates, who were far below to him in the merit list, were issued orders of appointment almost one year earlier. In June, 1986 itself, he made a representation in this behalf and since positive result was not forthcoming, the applicant filed OA No. 288/1991 before this Tribunal. The said OA was dismissed on 04.11.1997. Aggrieved by that, he filed Writ Petition No. 5323/1998 before the High Court of Delhi. The writ petition was allowed through order dated 07.07.2010. It was directed that the benefit of qualifying service shall be extended to the applicant as per his rank, without any payment of wages and emoluments for the period during which, he did not work.

The applicant states that in the name of implementation of the order of the High Court, the respondents issued an OM dated 19.03.2012 and even while his date of appointment was treated as effective from 28.06.1986 and pay was notionally fixed, the benefit of seniority and service was not extended to him for the purpose of promotion etc..

The applicant contends that by the time the Writ Petition was allowed, his promotion to the post of SO was delayed by one year and once the High Court allowed the Writ Petition, all consequential benefits ought to have been extended. In this background, this OA is filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to set aside the order dated 19.03.2012, insofar as it did not extend to him the full benefits of the order of the High Court and to direct the respondents to extend him, all other consequential benefits, such as promotion to various posts.

The respondents filed a counter affidavit, opposing the OA. It is stated that the only remedy for the applicant is in the form of filing contempt case in the High Court and though such a contempt case was filed, he has withdrawn it on 23.09.2014; and in that view of the matter, the present OA is not maintainable. Various grounds raised by the applicant on merits are opposed.

We heard Shri A.K. Behera, counsel for the respondents and Shri Rajender Nischal, learned counsel for the respondents.

The narration made in the preceding paragraphs discloses that the relief as regards the preponment of the appointment of the applicant was granted by the Hon'ble High Court on 07.07.2010 in WP No.5323/1998 with certain conditions. In the OM dated 19.03.2012, the respondents observed as under:-

"2. In this connection, it is stated that the judgment delivered on 7.7.10 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has been considered in this Department in consultation with Ministry of Law & Justice, UPSC and the Establishment Division of DoPT. It has been decided to implement the judgment. Accordingly, Shri Debanand Sahoo may be given the following benefits:-

(i) Appoint him as Assistant w.e.f. 20.6.1986;

(ii) Fixation of pay notionally with effect from 20.6.1986, the date on which the earliest candidates joined with actual benefits from the date of his joining i.e. 17.3.1987.

(iii) He would be entitled for counting the period from 20.6,1986 to 17.3.1987 for pensionary benefits."

In case the applicant is of the view that the OM does not bring about the complete relief granted by the Hon'ble High Court, the only course open to him is to file a contempt case. In fact, the applicant filed a Contempt Case No. 215/2013. However, it was withdrawn and the Hon'ble High Court passed the order on 23.03.2014 as under:-

"1. After brief submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the contempt petition with liberty to challenge the order dated 19.03.2012 by virtue of which the benefit of qualifying service for promotion to the post of Section officer, which goes up to the level of Secretary, Govt. of India, has been denied to the petitioner.

Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for."

This is not a case in which the Hon'ble  High Court felt it appropriate that any fresh issue needs to be adjudicated by this Tribunal.  When the only issue was to examine whether the order passed in the Writ Petition,  was fully complied with,  the question  of entertaining the OA, does not arise.

We, therefore, do not find any merit in the OA. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.