Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Sonia – Appellant
Versus
High Court of Delhi & Anr. – Respondents
CM APPL. 31661 of 2021 & CM APPL. 3761 of 2023 in W.P.(C) 4166 of 2019
Decided On : 02-08-2023
Section 151 - Application for Amendment of Rules - Chapter-VIII (Miscellaneous) of The Delhi District Courts Establishment (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Rule 41(1) of Chapter-VIII (Miscellaneous) of The Delhi District Courts Establishment (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012 - The court discussed the unrestrained power of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and emphasized that it should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances. The court highlighted the increasing trend of filing applications under Section 151 after the disposal of the case, stating that such applications are often filed with a mala fide intention of seeking review of the order or judgment. The court referred to legal precedents to support its decision, emphasizing the need for finality of judgments and discouraging the filing of applications for modification or recall after the disposal of the matter.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Stenographer Grade-III, sought a change of cadre due to hearing difficulty. The court had previously disposed of the petition, directing the respondent to decide on the representation made by the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application seeking approval of an amendment to the Rules, which was pending with the Central Government. The court was tasked with determining whether a direction could be issued under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to obtain approval of the amendment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application was a review of the order passed in the disposed petition and that the relief sought was already adjudicated upon. It emphasized that the power under Section 151 should be exercised in exceptional circumstances and that the application did not present any new grounds for adjudication. Therefore, the court dismissed the application.
Issues: The main issue was whether a direction could be issued under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to obtain approval of the amendment to the Rules after the disposal of the petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for finality of judgments and discouraged the filing of applications for modification or recall after the disposal of the matter. It highlighted that the power under Section 151 should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances and that the application did not present any new grounds for adjudication.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application, stating that it could not grant the prayer as it was based on subsequent events that were not part of the disposed petition and that an alternative remedy was available to the petitioner.
ORDER
Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 31661/2021 (Direction)
1. The instant application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner/applicant seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) Direct Principal Secretary (Law, Justice And L.A.) to obtain approval of Central Government in respect of amendment made to Rule 41(1) Of Chapter - Viii (Miscellaneous) of The Delhi District Courts Establishment (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012 as recommended By Hon'ble Full Court of this Court:
(ii) Pass any such other orders as it may deem fit to this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Learned counsel of the petitioner/applicant submitted that the petitioner is employed as a Stenographer Grade- III in the office of respondent No.2, District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Court and is unable to effectively discharge her duties of Stenographer Grade-III because of her hearing difficulty. The petitioner made a representation dated 22nd December 2018, to respondent No.2 praying for change of her cadre from Stenographer to a cadre of an equivalent grade on Clerical or Ministerial side on the medical ground.
3. It is submitted that upon receiving no response to the said representation of the petitioner filed the above captioned writ petition, which was disposed of vide order dated 23rd April 2019 by Predecessor of this Court directing the respondent no.2 to decide the said representation made by petitioner within 4 weeks of date receipt of the order.
4. It is submitted that the instant application has been filed by the applicant/petitioner seeking that direction to be given to Principal Secretary (Law, Justice And Legal Affairs) to obtain approval of Central Government in respect of amendment made to Rule 41(1) of Chapter - Viii (Miscellaneous) of The Delhi District Courts Establishment (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012
5. It is submitted that this Court acting on the recommendations of "Committee for Amendment/Review of the Rules of the Appointment, Conditions of Service etc of the Officials/Employees of Delhi High Court/District Courts" recommended the amendment of Rule 41(1) of Chapter-VIII (Miscellaneous) of the Delhi District Courts Establishment (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012. The said amendment stated that stenographers of all grades may be permitted by the Appointing Authority, to change their cadre to a cadre of an equivalent grade on the clerical or ministerial side.
6. It is contended that the said amendment in Rule 41(1) of Chapter-VIII (Miscellaneous) of the Delhi District Courts Establishment (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012 required prior approval of the Central Government before the same could be notified by the Registrar General, High Court of Delhi. It is submitted that the Registrar General, High Court of Delhi sent a letter dated 15th November 2019 to the Principal Secretary (Law, Justice and Legal Affairs), requesting him to obtain approval of the Central Government at the earliest.
7. It is submitted that the Principal Secretary (Law, Justice and Legal Affairs) wrote letter dated 14th May 2020 to the Registrar General, High Court of Delhi to provide financial implications (recurring/non-recurring) involved in the matter to enable the Central Govt. to take action in the matter. It is contended that no action has taken place by Principal Secretary regarding approval of the said amendment.
8. It is submitted that the delay in enacting of the amendment is causing grave prejudice to the petitioner since it is difficult for the petitioner to continue working at the post of Stenographer Grade-III on account of grave hearing impairment/difficulty being faced by her.
9. Hence, in view of the foregoing submissions, the petitioner seeks that a direction may be issued to the Principal Secretary (Law, Justice And Legal Affairs) to obtain the approval of Central Government in respect of the
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 should be exercised in exceptional circumstances, and applications for modifi....
Clarificatory amendments post-final arguments allowable without strict due diligence proof if necessary for real controversy adjudication, no prejudice caused, prioritizing liberal approach under Ord....
The court ruled that revising an employee's promotion without providing a fair opportunity violates natural justice and relevant statutory rules.
Conditional promotions may be revoked under established rules, affirming the authority to rectify procedural errors in service appointments.
A review application can only succeed on grounds available at initial adjudication; new developments post-decision do not constitute sufficient grounds for review.
Point of Law : Only officers appointed by Government under Order XXVII Rule 1 C.P.C., 1908 can sign and verify papers in legal proceeding on behalf of Government and this power cannot be delegated to....
Disciplinary authorities possess discretionary power to modify penalties; however, any administrative action resulting in the enhancement of an existing penalty or the reversal of a previous mitigati....
The court affirmed the principle of providing alternative employment to medically unfit candidates, emphasizing timely action and adherence to judicial discipline.
The court ruled that without express language, amendments to salary statutes cannot be given retrospective effect, upholding the principle of equality and fair administrative action under Article 14.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
