Disposed

Suresh Chand v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC10 Oct 2019W.P.(C)/10808/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi directed the respondents to file a reply to an M.A. seeking interim relief regarding the petitioner's termination. The court criticized the Tribunal for adjourning termination proceedings beyond the effective date without considering interim relief. The Writ Petition was disposed of with a stay application order directing parties to maintain status-quo.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to file reply to M.A. by next date; Tribunal to hear interim relief application; Status Quo directed in stay application.

Suresh Chand Vs Union of India and Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~59

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Judgment : 10^th October, 2019

¶4

- W.P.(C) 10808/2019 SURESH CHAND ..... Petitioner Through Mr. U. Srivastava, proxy counsel with Mr. Anoop Kumar, Advocates for Mr. M.K. Gaur, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. T.P. Singh, Sr. Central Govt. Counsel for R-1/UOI.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

¶9

G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)

¶10

CM APPL 44661/2019 (exemption)

¶11

Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

Application stands disposed of.

¶13

W.P.(C) 10808/2019

¶14

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by two orders dated 11.09.2019 and 26.09.2019 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’).

¶15

Mr. U. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had laid challenge to an order dated 11.09.2019 passed by the respondents by which the services of the petitioner were terminated on account of his not fulfilling one of three essential conditions of recruitment, more particularly condition No.3, which read as under :

¶16

W.P.(C) 10808/2019

¶17

Page 1 of 5

¶18

“As per Recruitment Notice of Paramedical and Nursing Staff for ESIC Medical College/Hospitals in Haryana Region advertised in December 2015, point C(a) eligibility: Educational &Other Qualification and Age limit for the advertised posts, the following were the essential conditions for Ayurvedic Pharmacist (post code 7):

¶19

1. Matriculation or equivalent qualification from recognised Board.

¶20

1. Diploma in Ayurvedic from a recognised institution.

¶21

1. Three years' experience in Ayurvedic Pharmacy in a recognised institute/hospital after duly registered under pharmacy Act,1948.”

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that three years’ experience certificate was obtained by the petitioner from Patanjali Ayurved Hospital, a copy of which has been filed alongwith this petition. He further submits that the petitioner has also raised other grounds, which would show that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶23

The grievance of the petitioner before us is firstly that when the matter was listed before the learned Tribunal, the following order was passed :

¶24

“CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶25

ORDER SHEET

¶26

COURT NO. : 2 No. Of Adjournment : 1 26/09/2019 O.A./100/2874/2019

¶27

SURESH CHAND

¶28

-V/S-

¶29

EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION

¶30

ITEM N0:2

¶31

FOR APPLICANTS(S) Adv. : Dr. Swati Jindal Garg

¶32

FOR APPLICANTS(S) Adv. :

¶33

W.P.(C) 10808/2019

¶34

Page 2 of 5

¶35

Notes of The Registry	Order of The Tribunal
	Heard Learned counsel for the applicant.
	Issue notice to the Respondents.
	List the matter before Principal Registrar’s Court for completion of pleadings on 06.12.2019.
	(ARADHANA JOHRI) (R.N. SINGH) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)

¶36

whereby, on the last date i.e. 26.09.2019, only notice was issued and the prayer for interim relief was not considered nor was an early date prior to the completion of one month granted and the matter was simply placed before the Principal Registrar for completion of pleadings on 06.12.2019.

¶37

Mr. Srivastava further submits that the petitioner thereafter filed an M.A., which was listed on 07.10.2019 and without even issuing notice, the same was adjourned to 08.11.2019 with the following order :

¶38

“CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶39

ORDER SHEET

¶40

COURT NO. : 2 No. Of Adjournment : 2 07/10/2019 M.A./100/3254/2019 O.A./100/2874/2019

¶41

SURESH CHAND

¶42

-V/S-

¶43

EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION

¶44

ITEM N0:101

¶45

W.P.(C) 10808/2019

¶46

Page 3 of 5

¶47

FOR APPLICANTS(S) Adv. : Dr. Swati Jindal Garg along with Mr. Mahavir Singh

¶48

FOR RESPON for Mr.	DENTS(S) Adv. : Mr. Shobhit Kumar Murari Kumar
Notes of The Registry	Order of The Tribunal
	Learned proxy counsel for the respondents prays for time.
	Call on 08.11.2019.
	(PRADEEP KUMAR) (SN TERDAL) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Tribunal has not allowed the petitioner to address arguments and bring to the notice of the Tribunal that by not granting any interim relief, the O.A. would be rendered infructuous. In these circumstances learned counsel seeks a direction to the Tribunal for expeditious hearing of the application seeking interim relief. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has no other source of livelihood and he is the only bread winner of his family.

¶50

We have heard learned counsels for the parties. Having regard to the submissions so made, we find it somewhat strange that the learned Tribunal has on the first date of hearing simply adjourned the matter to a date beyond the one month period contained in the order of termination, when the termination would become effective. The M.A. seeking urgent relief was also not entertained, which is evident from the fact that even notice has not been issued and simply at the asking of the

¶51

W.P.(C) 10808/2019

¶52

Page 4 of 5

¶53

proxy counsel for the respondent, the matter has been adjourned to 08.11.2019.

¶54

Accordingly, we direct the respondents to file reply to the M.A. before the next date of hearing. The Tribunal will hear the application seeking interim relief on 08.11.2019, the date already fixed.

¶55

Copy of this order will be served upon all the respondents for filing reply.

¶56

We make it clear that in case no reply is filed, the matter would be heard in the absence of reply.

¶57

Record will be produced before the Tribunal on 08.11.2019.

¶58

With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶59

CM APPL44660/2019 (stay)

¶60

Parties are directed to maintain status-quo in the meantime.

¶61

The application stands disposed of.

¶62

Copy of order be given dasti to the parties under signature of the Court Master.

¶63

G.S. SISTANI, J

¶64

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J

¶65

OCTOBER 10, 2019/ ck

¶66

W.P.(C) 10808/2019

¶67

Page 5 of 5

Suresh Chand v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Chand v. Union of India and 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

Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Vs Kiran Sharma & Ors.

The Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Vs Kamlesh Rani Bhatla

M/S Trusine Electronics (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Trade and Taxes and Anr.

Sh. Dayanand Vs D. D. a (Delhi Development Authority)

Ex-Const. Kartar Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ms. Savita Kumari Vs Lady Harding Medical College & Smt. S. K. Hospital and Ors.

Hari Mohan Saraff Vs Union of India & Anr.

Hari Mohan Saraff Vs Union of India & Anr.

The Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Vs Kamlesh Rani Bhatla

Sms Limited Vs Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.

Axis Communications through Its Managing Partner Vs Wapcos Ltd. and Ors.

Ex. Inspector Lala Ram (Executive) Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ms. Savita Kumari Vs Lady Harding Medical College & Smt. S. K. Hospital and Ors.

Mukhtiar Singh Vs Union of India