Allowed

Ramesh Singh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC6 Jul 2018W.P.(C)/6619/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows a writ petition where the Delhi High Court held that a fresh cause of action arose due to respondents' fresh speaking orders. The court clarified petitioners can challenge both the fresh orders and earlier orders held valid, directing expedited disposal upon filing a fresh OA.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of; petitioners directed to file a fresh OA, Tribunal to maintain status quo pending interim relief, and to dispose expeditiously.

Ramesh Singh & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~2

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 6619/2018 & & C.M. Nos.25261/2018(for stay), 25262/2018(for exemption)

¶4

RAMESH SINGH & ANR ..... Petitioners Through Mr.M.K. Bhardwaj, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr.Dev. P. Bhardwaj, Adv. for R-1. Mr.Rajeev Sharma, Adv. for R-2 to 4. Mr.Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. with Ms.Malavika Lal, Adv. for R-6.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 06.07.2018

¶10

The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 29^th May, 2018, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, disposing of the contempt petition filed by them for non-compliance of the order dated 21^st September, 2016 passed in O.A. No.2733/2010. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the respondents have passed independent speaking orders both dated 1^st May, 2018, in respect of each of the petitioners, declining their request for promotion from the post of Assistant Engineer to JTS Grade, on the ground that they are ineligible for such a promotion.

¶11

Mr.Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that once the speaking orders have been passed by the respondents W.P.(C) 6619/2018 Page No.1 of 3

¶12

on 1^st May, 2018, a fresh cause of action has accrued in favour of the petitioners and if aggrieved thereby, they are still entitled to take independent legal recourse without assailing the impugned order dated 29^th May, 2018 passed by the Tribunal wherein, it has only been recorded that the order dated 21^st September, 2016 passed in the earlier OA filed by the petitioners have been complied with. We are inclined to agree with the aforesaid submission.

¶13

At this stage, Mr.Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioners states that even if the petitioners take fresh legal recourse against the order dated 1^st May, 2018, the challenge laid to the earlier order dated 9^th August, 2010 in O.A. No.2733/2010 even if agitated by the petitioners may not be entertained in view of the order dated 21^st September, 2016.

¶14

It is clarified that in view of the observations made by the respondents in its order dated 1^st May, 2018 to the effect that the earlier order issued on 9^th August, 2010 holds good and admittedly, the legality and the validity of the said order was not examined by the Tribunal while passing the order dated 21^st September, 2016, in the earlier petition, the petitioners shall be well entitled to assail the order dated 1^st May, 2018 as also the order dated 9^th August, 2010 passed by the respondents, by taking all the pleas that may be available to them, both in law and on facts.

¶15

With the aforesaid clarification, the present petition is disposed of along with the pending applications.

¶16

In view of the fact that much water has flown under the bridge over the past eight years and the petitioners are on the verge of superannuation, as and when they file a fresh OA, the Tribunal is requested to dispose of the W.P.(C) 6619/2018 Page No.2 of 3

¶17

same as expeditiously as possible.

¶18

It is further directed that in case the petitioners file a fresh petition within two weeks from today along with an application for interim relief, the same shall be considered by the Tribunal on its own merits and till appropriate orders are passed on the application for interim relief, status quo with regard to the post that the petitioners are presently on, shall be maintained.

HIMA KOHLI, J

REKHA PALLI, J

JULY 06, 2018 gm

W.P.(C) 6619/2018

Page No.3 of 3

Ramesh Singh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Singh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nims University Vs University Grants Commission & Ors.

Fashion Factory Impex Vs Commissioner of Value Added Tax

Shiv Singh Negi Vs Central Information Commission & Ors.

Lal Chand Vs Union of India and Ors.

Jaikishan Aggarwal Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corp Ltd.

Combined Traders Vs Commissioner of Trade & Taxes

Jaikishan Aggarwal (Blind) Vs UOI & Ors.

M/S Raj Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Gazanand Meena and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Indian Institute of Mass Communication (Iimc) and Ors. Vs Shivaji Sarkar

Pawan Kumar Vs Staff Selection Commission and Anr.

Anuradha Dhaul and Anr. Vs Directorate of Estate and Anr.

Ex. Constable (Driver) Shyam Sunder No. 271/SB Vs Lt. Governer, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs Azad Singh