Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1432 (HP)

Union of India v. Sanjay Kumar

2015-10-08

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir CMP(M) Nos.11609 of 2013 & 11608 of 2013 1. The application, being CMP(M) No.11608 of 2013, has been filed by the applicants/petitioners for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.77, while CMP(M) No.11609 of 2013 has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the application i.e. CMP(M) No.11608 of 2013. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the applications, the same are allowed, the delay is condoned and the persons mentioned in paragraph No.1 of CMP(M) No.11608 of 2013 are ordered to be brought on record as legal representatives of respondent No.77 and are arrayed as respondents No.77(a) to 77(d). The Registry is directed to make necessary correction in the cause title. 3. Issue notice to the newly added respondents. Mr.Rajnish K. Lal, Advocate, waives notice for the said respondents. CWP No.2196 of 2013: 4. By the medium of this writ petition, the petitioners have questioned the order, dated 16th January, 2013, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), whereby Original Application, being OA No.279/HP/2012, titled Sanjay Kumar and others vs. Union of India and others, was allowed, and the Original Applicants (respondents herein) were held entitled to the benefit of Non- Executive Promotion Policy, (for short, the NEPP). 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners (respondents before the Tribunal) have filed the instant writ petition challenging the order passed by the Tribunal on the grounds taken in the memo of writ petition. 6. Precisely, the case of the Original Applicants (respondents herein) before the Tribunal was that they were denied the benefit of pension, family pension, leave and provident fund on the ground that they were direct recruits in the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short, the BSNL), constraining them to file CWP No.545 of 2006, wherein orders entitling the Original Applicants for the benefit of NEPP, were passed. However, notwithstanding the orders passed in the writ petition, the petitioners were denied the benefit of NEPP. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order. The Tribunal, while allowing the Original Application, has rightly made the discussion in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the impugned order, which are reproduced below: “3. However, notwithstanding the orders passed in the writ petition, the petitioners were denied the benefit of NEPP. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order. The Tribunal, while allowing the Original Application, has rightly made the discussion in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the impugned order, which are reproduced below: “3. There is a precise averment, in the course of the O.A., that the process of consideration for regularization of the applicants had concluded on 30.08.2000 and the issuance of formal orders in pursuance thereof were delayed due to delay on the part of the department itself which (delay) could not visit the applicants with onerous consequences. 4. It is apparent, from a perusal of the pleadings raised bythe parties and the documentation placed on record, that the consideration on point of grant of status of Temporary Mazdoor/Casual Labourer and the consequential regularization came to be concluded on 30.08.2000 but implementation thereof came to be delayed for no fault on the part of the applicants. They cannot, accordingly, be made to suffer for the delay in the relevant context. The competent authority having issued the Presidential Order (Annexure A-4) cannot validly deny the requested benefit to them on the premise that they were direct recruits into BSNL which they, in fact, were not. There is plethora of documentation on record to prove that the applicants were erstwhile DoT employees who were absorbed into BSNL w.e.f. 01.10.2000, vide order dated 30.08.2008 (Annexure A-4). We would, accordingly, allow the O.A. and uphold the entitlement of the applicants to the benefit of NEPP Scheme.” 8. We have examined the pleadings and the law applicable and are of the considered view that the impugned order is well reasoned and requires no interference. 9. Having said so, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed, alongwith pending CMPs, if any.