$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

W.P (C) 6526/2021 & CM APPL. 20512/2021

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

..... Petitioners

Through:

Mrs Avnish Ahlawat, SC, GNCTD

with Mr Neeraj Pal and Mrs Palak

Rohmetra, Advs.

versus

PRIYANKA

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr Sahib Gurdeep Singh and Mr S.

Rai Sethi, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH

TALWANT SINGH, J.:

1. By way of this writ petition, the Government of NCT of Delhi has

challenged an order dated 17.02.2021 passed by the Central Administrative

Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal’), Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A.

4228/2018.

2. The brief facts as narrated by the petitioners are that on 28.05.2010,

Department of Social Welfare, Government of NCT of Delhi had engaged

Welfare Officer/Protection Officers on contract basis from the list provided by

an outsourcing agency, namely Intelligent Communication Systems India

Limited (ICSIL) and these contractual engagements were made from time to

time. Later on when the relevant records were examined, discrepancies in initial

engagement order in respect of the present respondent were noticed and her case

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003889

was not submitted for ex-post facto approval to be obtained from the Hon’ble Lt.

Governor.

2.1

As per the petitioners, the respondent’s name did not figure in the

sponsored list but her engagement order was issued separately on 12.08.2010 and

renewed on 12.09.2011 onwards. Her order of engagement states that her

candidature was sponsored by ICSIL vide letter dated 25.05.2010; which resulted

in her being appointed as a Welfare Officer. However, in fact, name of one Ms

Priyanka, daughter of Shri Anil Kumar was sponsored by ICSIL and was shown

at serial no. 12 of the list forwarded by ICSIL and who had been working in the

Welfare Department since the date of her initial engagement.

2.2

It is submitted that, the present respondent was appointed fraudulently

against the name of the said Priyanka, although her name was not there in the list

of candidates sponsored by ICSIL. Sufficient opportunities were given to the

respondent vide letters dated 14.03.2018 and 02.05.2018 to prove and provide

documentary evidence to the effect that she was registered with the manpower

agency M/s ICSIL and that her name was sponsored for engagement to the post

of Welfare Officer by M/s ICSIL. The respondent failed to provide any such

document in proof.

2.3

The initial engagement of the respondent was not made as per the

procedure adopted by the Government, which was to offer contractual

employment to the candidates sponsored by ICSIL; no ex-post facto approval of

the Lt. Governor concerning her initial engagement and subsequent continuation

was sought. Consequently, vide order dated 23.10.2017 her contractual

engagement was discontinued.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003889

2.4

The respondent filed O.A bearing no. 3101/2018 before the Tribunal. Vide

order dated 17.08.2018, the Tribunal directed the present petitioners to decide the

representation submitted by the respondent by passing a speaking order. In

compliance thereto, a detailed speaking order dated 17.09.2018 was passed,

reiterating the above-mentioned facts and after stating that the respondent had

illegally taken advantage of having common first name with another person, who

was actually and originally sponsored by ICSIL and, who had joined the

department and has been continuously working.

2.5

Thereafter, the respondent filed O.A. no. 4228/2018 before the Tribunal

challenging the rejection order dated 17.09.2018 on the ground that she is fully

qualified and eligible for appointment as Welfare Officer on contractual basis and

she cannot be replaced with another contractual employee. Vide interim order

dated 15.11.2018 petitioners were directed to e