W.P.(C).5737/2016 & 5738/2016 Page 1 of 6

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment Dated: 08^th July, 2016

+

W.P.(C) 5737/2016 & CM.APPL.23665/2016(stay)

DEEPAK KUMAR & ORS

..... Petitioners

Through

Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS

..... Respondents

Through

Mr. Anil Panwar with Mr. Ram

Kumar Jha, Advocates

+

W.P.(C) 5738/2016 & CM.APPL.23667/2016(stay)

ASHOK KUMAR & ORS

..... Petitioners

Through

Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS

..... Respondents

Through

Mr. Anil Panwar with Mr. Ram

Kumar Jha, Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA

G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)

1.

The matters are taken up today as the 7^th 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

2016:DHC:4797-DB

W.P.(C).5737/2016 & 5738/2016 Page 2 of 6

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 Tribuna, 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.

2016:DHC:4797-DB

W.P.(C).5737/2016 & 5738/2016 Page 3 of 6

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 o