Dismissed

Hari Kishore Sharma v. Chief Secretary Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC6 Jan 2016LPA/883/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against an interim order, the Division Bench refused to interfere with the Single Judge's decision declining interim stay in a writ petition challenging the transfer of a contractual Assistant Engineer, relying on precedent for non-grant of interim orders unless an exceptional case is made out.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; Single Judge's order declining interim stay stands.

Hari Kishore Sharma Vs Chief Secretary Govt of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision : January 06, 2016

¶4

LPA 883/2015 HARI KISHORE SHARMA ..... Appellant Represented by: Ms.Rashmi Chopra, Advocate with Ms.Asiya, Advocate versus CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Uttam, Advocate for R-1 Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate with Ms.Latika Chaudhary, Advocate

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

¶7

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

¶8

Having heard learned counsel for the parties we concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that pending hearing of the writ petition no case was made out to grant interim stay, as prayed for by the appellant.

¶9

Our reasons for agreeing with the final view taken by the learned Single Judge, who has not given any reasons for declining interim stay. 3. The appellant was appointed on contract by the second respondent, a juristic entity under the Government of NCT of Delhi, to work as an

¶10

LPA No.883/2015 Page 1 of 4

¶11

Assistant Engineer (Civil). The contract was for a period of one year. It expired, and was extended till further orders.

¶12

Extending the contract further, respondent No.2 issued an advertisement inviting applications from Assistant Engineer (Civil) working under the Central or the State Government as also autonomous bodies under the Central or the State Government to work as Assistant Engineer (Civil) on deputation basis.

¶13

Appellant approached the learned Single Judge relying upon a policy decision taken by the Government of Delhi on February 16, 2015 that contractual employees should be made permanent. The advertisement was challenged. Interim prayer was made to restrain respondent No.2 from filling up the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) by transfer on deputation.

¶14

Issuing notice in the writ petition the learned Single Judge declined to pass any interim order. No reasons have been given to decline interim stay as prayed for. 7. As per the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition by the appellant, he has disclosed his age to be 58 years.

¶15

The substantive issue which would arise for consideration before the learned Single Judge would be whether the policy decision to hitherto fore appoint Assistant Engineer (Civil) only on transfer by deputation basis is rational or irrational. As per the respondent the rational would be to have some kind of accountability fixed on the incumbent of the post. Holding post on a contract basis, save and except to terminate the contract, no further accountability can be fastened on the holder of the post.

¶16

The issue concerning the office memorandum dated February 16, 2015 issued by the first respondent concerning permanent absorption of

¶17

LPA No.883/2015 Page 2 of 4

¶18

contract employees, would require it to be considered whether the same would be applicable to persons who had served as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in different organizations and having probably resigned or taken voluntary retirement applied for appointment on contract at an age when the superannuation was in the realm of a destination to be reached. This is the importance of a fact noted by us hereinabove that when the appellant filed the writ petition he was already 58 years of age. The age of superannuation under respondent No.2 is 60 years.

¶19

In the decision reported as 1988 (Vol.14) DRJ 134 H.K.Sharma Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi the view taken by the Full Bench was that in matters concerning employment interim orders should normally not be granted for the reason the grant of an interim order in favour of a petitioner would be putting the respondent in an irretrievable situation, for if the writ petition was ultimately dismissed, the writ petitioner would be entitled to wages for the work done on the principle of quantum meruit. If interim stay was declined, and ultimately the writ petitioner succeeded he could be compensated with money. It was only when an exceptional strong case was made out could the Court be justified in granting an interim stay.

¶20

For the facts noted hereinabove it cannot be said that the case of the appellant, as pleaded in the writ petition, is of an exceptional merit envisaged by the decision in H.K.Sharma ’s case for grant of an interim stay. 12. While dismissing the appeal we would simply observe that the learned Single Judge would decide the writ petition uninfluenced by any observations made by us. The scope of the appeal does not concern the ultimate merits of the writ petition filed by the appellant. It only concerns whether an exceptional meritorious case was prima-facie made out entitling

¶21

LPA No.883/2015 Page 3 of 4

¶22

the appellant to the grant of an interim stay.

¶23

The appeal is dismissed.

¶24

No costs.

¶25

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

¶26

(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2016 mamta

¶27

LPA No.883/2015 Page 4 of 4

Hari Kishore Sharma v. Chief Secretary Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Kishore Sharma v. Chief Secretary Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Prakash Saxena & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Anuradha Kalra Vs the Delhi Development Authority

Surinder Kaur Vs Ram Narula & Ors.

Shri Panchayati Akhara Naya Udaseen Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sports & Leisure Apparel Ltd. Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation

International Planned Parenthood Federation (Ippf) Vs Madhu Bala Nath