Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 2316
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G.S. SISTANI & I.S. MEHTA, JJ.
DEEPAK KUMAR & ORS – Petitioners
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS – Respondents
W.P. (C) Nos. 5737, 5738 of 2016 & CM APPL. Nos. 23665, 23667 of 2016 (Stay)
Decided On : 08-07-2016
For the Petitioner:Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Anil Panwar with Mr. Ram Kumar Jha, Advocates.
The failure to advance arguments as cautioned by the Tribunal led to the automatic vacation of the interim order, and the court held the petitioners responsible for the present situation.
Headnote:
Deputation - Absorption in Pay and Accounts Department - Central Administrative Tribunal - [Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, Section 14(1)(a); Border Security Force Act, 1968, Section 6(1)] - The court considered the rejection of the petitioners' claim for absorption in the Pay and Accounts Department by the Border Security Force and the subsequent issuance of an office order relieving the petitioners from their deputation. The court found that the petitioners were allowed to continue on deputation by an interim order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was later vacated due to the petitioners' failure to advance arguments. The court directed the Registrar of the Central Administrative Tribunal to list the miscellaneous application and the contempt petition before the appropriate bench and extended the interim protection granted to the petitioners until the judgment is pronounced by the Tribunal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, BSF personnel, were on deputation in the Pay and Accounts Department. Their claim for absorption was rejected, and they were subsequently relieved from their deputation by an office order. The petitioners filed a contempt petition and a miscellaneous application seeking stay of the office order before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were responsible for the present situation as they failed to address the Tribunal's caution that the interim order would stand vacated automatically if arguments were not advanced. The court directed the Registrar of the Central Administrative Tribunal to list the miscellaneous application and the contempt petition before the appropriate bench and extended the interim protection granted to the petitioners until the judgment is pronounced by the Tribunal.
Issues: The issues involved the rejection of the petitioners' claim for absorption, the issuance of the office order relieving the petitioners from their deputation, and the subsequent filing of a contempt petition and a miscellaneous application before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioners' failure to advance arguments as cautioned by the Tribunal led to the automatic vacation of the interim order, and the court held that the petitioners were responsible for the present situation. The court directed the Registrar of the Central Administrative Tribunal to list the miscellaneous application and the contempt petition before the appropriate bench and extended the interim protection granted to the petitioners until the judgment is pronounced by the Tribunal.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petitions with a direction to the Registrar of the Central Administrative Tribunal to list the miscellaneous application and the contempt petition before the appropriate bench and extended the interim protection granted to the petitioners until the judgment is pronounced by the Tribunal. The court also requested the Bench, which had reserved the judgment, to render the judgment within a period of four weeks from the date of the decision.
G.S. SISTANI, J.
1. The matters are taken up today as the 7th July, 2016, was declared holiday on account of Idu’l Fitr.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the orders dated 24.05.2016 and 01.06.2016 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’).
3. The facts of both the cases are almost identical and since identical issues arise for consideration of this Court, both the petitions are being disposed of by a common order.
4. In both the cases, the claim of the petitioners for absorption in the Pay and Accounts Department was rejected by the Border Security Force by an order dated 25.09.2014. Two OAs were filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal. While issuing notice in the matter, the order by which their request for absorption was rejected, was stayed by an order dated 09.10.2014.
5. The grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petitions is that despite the restraint order dated 9.10.2014 the respondents have issued the Office Order dated 12.5.2016 by which the petitioners stand relieved and they have been directed to join their parent cadre with immediate effect. It is further the grievance of the petitioners that the petitioners being aggrieved by the Office Order dated 12.5.2016 filed a contempt petition and also a miscellaneous application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, however, no orders have been passed in the application and in the contempt petition.
6. It is further submitted by Mr.Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the arguments in both the OAs stand concluded and judgment has been reserved on 10.2.2016. Mr.Bhardwaj further contends that serious prejudice would be caused to the rights of the petitioners if the Office Order dated 12.5.2016 is not stayed.
7. Per contra, Mr.Bhardwaj, Advocate contends that the interim order granted by the Tribunal on 9.10.2014 stood automatically vacated as per the order dated 30.9.2014 passed by the Tribunal and, thus, the respondents were well within their right to issue the office order and relieve the petitioners as their period of deputation had come to an end. Counsel contends that the Tribunal was constrained to pass the order dated 30.9.2015 on account of the conduct of the petitioners as after the interim order was passed the matter was being intentionally delayed.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their consent the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
9. In both these cases, fourteen BSF personnel were taken on deputation in the Pay and Accounts Department, BSF, New Delhi, for a period of three years with effect from different dates. During the period of 2014-2015, the deputation tenure of all the petitioners stand expired. By an interim order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioners were allowed to continue on deputation. On 30.5.2015, the Tribunal made it clear that in case the applicants (petitioners herein) do not advance arguments on the next date of hearing, the interim order would stand vacated automatically. Order sheets placed on record would show that the matter was adjourned to 07.10.2015, 26.10.2015, 28.01.2016, 09.02.2016 and finally on 10.02.2016 the orders were reserved. After the order was reserved, the respondents issued Office Order dated 12.5.2016, which reads as under:
“No.100/10PrAO(Admn)?MHA/2014-15(Leg)
Date : 12-05-2016
OFFICE ORDER
Subject: Deputation of BSF personnel to PAD, BSF, New Delhi.
1. Whereas 14 BSF personnel listed in the enclosed Annexure were taken on deputation on transfer basis in PAD, BSF, New Delhi for the period mentioned against each for a period of three years with effect from the date mentioned against each and were posted in PAD, BSF, New Delhi during the deputation period.
2. Whereas, the deputation tenure of all the 14 personnel has already expired during the period 2014-15, on the dates mentioned against each. However, all the 14 BSF personnel were allowed to continue on deputation in compliance of
