Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 10688
DELHI HIGH COURT
MS RENU BALA & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – Respondent
WP(C)-16146_2023
The power to create or abolish posts falls within the executive domain, and there is no vested right to be re-appointed to any other autonomous body of the Ministry upon abolition.
Headnote:
ABOLITION OF POST - EXECUTIVE POWER - STAY OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, employees of respondent no. 2 for 26 years, challenged the decision to dissolve respondent no. 2 and their forced retirement on 15th December 2023, claiming denial of option to choose between Voluntary Retirement Scheme and re-employment.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the power to abolish posts lies within the executive domain and that the petitioners had no vested right to be re-employed. The court further noted that the decision to re-employ the petitioners rested with the respondents, who possessed the requisite decision-making power.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to a stay of the Office Memorandum dated 21st November 2023, which mandated their voluntary retirement from respondent no. 2.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on established legal principles, including the inherent power of the government to abolish civil posts and the absence of any vested right to re-employment or the same post upon abolition. The court also emphasized the executive's exclusive domain in decision-making regarding the creation and abolition of posts.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioners' application for an interim stay of the Office Memorandum dated 21st November 2023, finding no circumstances warranting such protection.
W.P.(C) 16146/2023 Page 1 of 10
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Date of order: 22nd December, 2023
+
W.P.(C) 16146/2023 & CM APPL. 64887/2023 & 64888/2023
MS RENU BALA & ORS.
..... Petitioners
Through:
Mr. K.C. Mittal, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through:
Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with
Mr.Apoorv Kurup, Advocate for R-1
Mr.
Santosh
Kumar
Tripathi
(Standing Counsel, Civil) for GNCTD
R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
ORDER
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)
1.
The present application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, seeks the following prayer:
CM APPL. 64887/2023
Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:27.12.2023
17:53:27
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16146/2023 Page 2 of 10
2.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that
the petitioners are regular employees of respondent no. 2 and have been
serving it for almost 26 years.
3.
It is further submitted that the respondents have been illegally and
arbitrarily decided to dissolve and close the respondent no. 2 without
complying with the statutory regulations. Furthermore, they have wrongly
held that the petitioners’ last day of retirement is 15th December 2023 vide
the office memorandum dated 21st November 2023.
4.
It is contended that the petitioners in terms of office memorandum
dated 28th February 2002, have been denied option to choose between
Voluntary Retirement Scheme and re-employment.
5.
In view of the foregoing discussion, the counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner prayed that an interim stay may be granted against office
memorandum dated 21st November 2023 as per which the petitioners have to
voluntarily retire on 15th December 2023.
6.
Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the petitioner and
submitted to the effect that the decision of the respondent falls within its
executive domain of the Union Cabinet.
7.
It is submitted that the dissolution ofrespondent no. 2 is in accordance
with the provisions of the SocietiesRegistration Act, 1860 and the resolution
to dissolve was taken at Annual General Meeting dated 18th June 2022,
Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:27.12.2023
17:53:27
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16146/2023 Page 3 of 10
which has affirmed by the respondent no.2’s General Body at its 62nd and
63rd General Body Meetings.
8.
It is contended that the Cabinet’s decision to grant Special Voluntary
Retirement is a special measure in accordance with Office Memorandum
dated 28th February 2002 of Department of Personnel & Training falls with
the decision-making power accorded by the Constitution of India.
9.
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
10.
The question for adjudication before this Court whether the petitioners
are entitled for stay of the Office Memorandum 21st November 2023 as per
which the petitioner will be voluntarily retired from the respondent no. 2.
11.
It is a settled law that it is a settled law that the power to abolish any
civil post is inherent in every sovereign Government and such abolition will
not provide any vested right to the person holding the abolished post any
right to be re-employed or to hold the same post.
12.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the above- stated principle in
the landmark judgment of State of Haryana v. Des Raj Sangar, (1976) 2
SCC 844as follows:
Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:27.12.2023
17:53:27
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16146/2023 Page 4 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:27.12.2
