AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Briefly stated, the facts of the current O.A. are that the applicant applied for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) Natural Science conducted by Delhi Subordinate Selection Board (DSSB) under Post Code-012/2002 under ST category. She appeared for the said examination on 16.03.2003. The DSSB did not declare the result of reserved category (SC/ST & OBC) on the ground that the benefit of reservation will not be extended to the candidates, whose parents are migrant or their certificate has been issued from out of Delhi. The said decision of the Board was challenged by the candidates who appeared in the examination for selection in Primary Teachers before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CWP-5061/2002, Petition and was decided on 31.05.2002 holding that the benefit of reservation cannot be denied to the candidates on the said grounds and directed that the candidates shall be treated as appointed on the date when the candidates of general categories were given appointment. However, they will not be entitled for all other benefits such as seniority, increment, fixation of pay and other allowances. The said decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was challenged in LPA-625/2002, which was dismissed on 13.05.2005.
The applicant was given an offer of appointment on 13.10.2003 but was given appointment in 2005 after the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in LPA-625/2002. She was given seniority from March 2003 and her appointment was treated as 2003-2009 (Block Year). The applicant was given the appointment letter dated 12.12.2005 and she joined duty on 13.12.2005.
The applicant states that she was given notional appointment from 2003 and at that point of time, GPF was applicable and therefore she should be given GPF facility whereas the respondents are covering the applicant under CPF category. The applicant made a representation to the respondents on 12.03.2014 but no action was taken on her request. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed this O.A. seeking the following relief:-
"That the applicant for the post code 012/2002 may kindly be directed to be given the G.P.F. facilities along with consequential benefits."
In the counter, the respondents, while not disputing the facts of the case, have raised a preliminary objection on the ground of delay. They state that the cause of action arose to the applicant w.e.f. 13.12.2005 whereas she has filed the current O.A. on 24.08.2015. In support, they have cited the following judgments:-
(i) State of Orissa Vs. Mamta Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436.
(ii) Govt. of West Bengal Vs. Tarun K. Roy, (2004) 1 SCC 347.
(iii) State of M.P. Vs. Yogendra Srivastava, (2010) 12 SCC 538.
(iv) Vijendra Singh Shokeen Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, TA-81/2013 decided on 12.03.2014 by CAT.
(v) E. Parmasivan Vs. Union of India, (2003) 12 SCC 270.
3.1 Further, relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Gurdev Singh, (1991) 4 SCC 1, the respondents have stated that the aggrieved party must approach the Court within the stipulated period after expiry of which the Court cannot grant the relief prayed for. Same view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs. Ratan Chandra Samanta, JT 1993 (3) SC 418. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harish Uppal Vs. UOI, JT 1994(3) 126 has categorically laid down the law that delay defeats equity and the Court should help those who are vigilant and not those who are indolent. The parties are expected to pursue their rights and remedies promptly and if they just slumber over their rights, the Court should decline to interfere. Also, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Walia Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., JT 1997(6) SC 592 has held that:-
"Representation repeatedly given to various authorities do not furnish fresh course of action to file Writ Petition. The High Court is wholly unjustified to have entertained and allowed the Writ Petition."
3.2 The respondents also state that the applicant has already been granted notional seniority according to individual position in the merit list prepared by DSSSB. However, for grant of old GPF facility, the issue has not been finalized by DoP&T and Finance Department.
During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents Sh. Vijay Pandita stated that the issue has been referred for clarification to Ministry of Home Affairs. He stated that the outcome of the same is still awaited and requested that the issue may be kept pending till a clarification is received from Government of India.
I have gone through the facts of the case and heard both sides.
The grievance urged by the applicant is that she appeared and was given offer of appointment in the year 2003 itself. She has also been notionally appointed by the respondents from the year 2003 and has been given seniority w.e.f. March, 2003. Since at that point of time, GPF Scheme was applicable, hence, the same facility must be given to her.
It is a fact that the applicant had received an offer of appointment as early as 13.10.2003 and her appointment got delayed because of the pendency of CWP-5061/2002. By an order dated 31.05.2002, the issue was decided in favour of the petitioners, but got further delayed since the said decision was challenged in LPA-625/2002, which was dismissed on 13.05.2005.
The applicant received the offer of appointment in October, 2003 and now the respondents themselves have granted notional seniority to her w.e.f. 2003, when the GPF Scheme was in operation. In view of this background, her request for grant of GPF Scheme seems fair. Respectfully placing reliance on the rationale of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in LPA-625/2002 dated 15.05.2005, I allow the O.A. and direct the respondents to give the GPF facility along with consequential benefits to the applicant. This exercise should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.