$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of decision: 25.05.2021

+

W.P.(C) 5245/2020 and CM No.18891/2020

A.K. SINGH

……Petitioner

Through

Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj,

Mr. Karan Gautam and

Ms. Jagriti Singh, Advocates

versus

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL & ANR. …..Respondents

Through

Mr. Srivats Kaushal,

Mr. Tejaswini, Ms. Priyadeep and

Mr. Humraz Bir Singh, Advocates

for Respondent No.1

Ms. Archana Gaur and

Ms. Ridhima Gaur, Advocates for

Respondent No.2/UOI

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

J U D G E M E N T

1.

Petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the action of

the Respondents in discontinuing the service of the Petitioner w.e.f.

08.07.2020 and a writ of mandamus to the Respondents to reinstate the

Petitioner to the post of Section Officer, with all consequential benefits,

treating him to be in service from 09.07.2020.

2.

Before proceeding to analyze and appreciate the controversy raised

in the present petition, it is seemly to exposit the necessitous primary

facts as averred in the writ petition. Retired from the Indian Army on

2021:DHC:1702

31.03.2011, Petitioner was offered appointment as Assistant in Armed

Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, after successfully clearing the

interview conducted by a Committee of the Members of the said

Tribunal vide letter dated 14.11.2011. The appointment was on re-

employment on contract basis for a period of one year and was governed

by Ministry of Defence, I.D. Note No.7(11)/2009-D(AFT) Cell dated

10.07.2009, whereby the Ministry had agreed for appointment of retired

Government Servants to fill up unfilled posts in the Armed Forces

Tribunal, Principal Bench, after Department of Personnel and Training

(„DOPT‟), Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, gave

„no objection‟ to the said appointments. It was mentioned in the offer

letter that service of the Petitioner shall be governed by CCS (CCA)

Rules, 1965 and all other Government Orders issued from time to time.

3.

Petitioner accepted the offer and joined as Assistant w.e.f.

21.11.2011. He was subsequently appointed as Section Officer on

22.01.2013. It is averred that Recruitment Rules for the various posts in

Armed Forces Tribunal were never finalized from its inception in 2008

till 2018 and Respondent No.1 continued to appoint eligible persons on

re-employment on contract basis, including the Petitioner, and his

contract was renewed year to year. However, vide letter dated

03.02.2020, the Respondent No.1 instead of extending the term by one

year, as per past practice, extended the term only for three months and

subsequently, vide letters dated 04.05.2020, 29.05.2020 and 24.06.2020,

only month to month extension was granted. No extension was,

however, granted after 08.07.2020 and services of the Petitioner were

discontinued.

2021:DHC:1702

4.

In the meantime, the Petitioner appeared for an interview on

14.05.2018, for the post of Deputy Registrar, advertised, after

Recruitment Rules for various posts in Group „A‟ to „D‟ were notified

through Gazette Notification dated 23.04.2018. Being unsuccessful in

the interview, Petitioner was not appointed and he made a representation

challenging the process of appointment of Deputy Registrar. Petitioner

was also agitated issues of serious anomalies in services conditions of

the employees of the Armed Forces Tribunal relating to break in service,

pay fixation, etc.

5.

Instead of redressing the grievances of the Petitioner, Respondent

No.1 issued a Memorandum on 13.09.2019, asking the Petitioner to

explain as to why no approval for hiring vehicles for official duty was

obtained from the Competent Authority. Petitioner duly responded and

filed reply to the Memorandum, but being not satisfied with his

response, Respondent No.1 issued Memorandum of Charge on

15.06.2020 under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCS) Rules, 1965. Pe