High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a unchallenged consent order for regularization filed after gross delay, finding no merit and refusing validity of cited precedent.
Writ petition and connection applications dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~18
Date of Decision: 4th February, 2020
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through : Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC.
versus
KARAM CHAND ..... Respondent Through :
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI J U D G M E N T
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
C.M. No.4233/2020 (exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.1230/2020
"After some arguments, learned counsel appearing for the parties are ad idem that present OA may be disposed of with a direction to respondents that applicant would
Page 1 of 4
W.P.(C) 1230/2020
be considered for his re-engagement as casual labourer and regularization as group D employee on availability of next vacancies by relaxing maximum age limit to the extent of length of service rendered by him as daily rated worker. Ordered accordingly. OA stands disposed of."
"14. That the learned Tribunal has passed the first impugned order dated 09.05.2012 and in compliance of the said order dated 09.05.2012, the petitioners vide their letter dated 24.12.2012 informed the respondent to contact the contractor of Out Sourcing Agency for work but the respondent has not replied to the said letter nor has disclosed the same in his application M.A.No.1939 of 2013 filed before the learned Tribunal. Thereafter the respondent filed the said M.A.No.1939 of 2013 for implementation of order dated 09.05.2012 to which the petitioners have filed their detailed reply, while contesting the same and the same was adjudicated vide order dated 20.1.2017 by the learned Tribunal and thereafter the respondent filed the Contempt Petition No.308 of 2017 for initiating contempt proceedings against the petitioners herein, wherein the petitioners have filed a compliance affidavit and after having satisfied with the said compliance affidavit, the learned Tribunal was pleased to drop the said contempt proceedings. Thereafter the respondent was re-engaged as casual labour in the department vide its order dated 4.9.2017. On 31.12.2018, respondent submitted application for regularization of his service in IMD/Petitioners. Thereafter the Department had processed the present case file to the Department of
Page 2 of 4
W.P.(C) 1230/2020
Personnel & Training on 03.06.2019, which on 28.08.2019 recommended that the Department does not agree to the proposal of his regularization and the petitioner-Department is also advised to agitate the matter before the higher court clearly pointing out that such regularization would be against the spirit of Apex Court's directions. Thereafter the file was entrusted to the Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of legal Affairs, which vide advise dated 16.10.2019, in terms of DOPT opinion, the petitioner-Department is advised to challenge the said orders of the learned Tribunal. Accordingly the Department approached the litigation Department of High Court and engaged the present counsel on 06.11.2019 and thereafter on 16.12.2019 the entire record of the learned Tribunal was provided to the present counsel for preparing the writ petition and to file the same before this Hon'ble Court. Hence there are no latches or delay in filing the present writ petition. In case there is any delay or latches the same may kindly be condoned in view of the submissions and circumstances elaborated hereinabove."
Page 3 of 4
W.P.(C) 1230/2020
is unable to sufficiently explain the delay in compliance with order dated 09.05.2012 as also the delay in approaching this court.
C.M. No.4234/2020 (stay)
G.S.SISTANI, J.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.
FEBRUARY 04, 2020/ Ne
Page 4 of 4
W.P.(C) 1230/2020
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should allow a writ petition challenging a consent order of the Tribunal filed after a gross, unexplained delay.
Whether a judgment of the Supreme Court suggesting consent orders need no interference applies when the petitioner has not sought recall of the order.
Whether the delay by the petitioner in approaching this court and in complying with the Tribunal's order is sufficient to dismiss the petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Director of Elementary Education, Odisha and Others vs. Pramod Kumar SahooDistinguished¶30
AIR 2019 SC 4755 · Who else cites this
Union of India & Ors.
Karam Chand
G.S. Sistani
Anup Jairam Bhambhani
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
G.S. Sistani and Anup Jairam Bhambhani
Parties & counsel
