Disposed

Union of India and Ors. v. Vijender Pal

Delhi HC5 Feb 2020W.P.(C)/978/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging age relaxation for appointment. The Court directed that if a review is filed, the original Tribunal must consider the Department of Personnel and Training instructions dated 27.03.2012 regarding age dispensation.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and pending application were disposed of with a direction to the Tribunal to consider the O.M. dated 27.03.2012 if a review is filed. Counsel agreed not to raise the plea of limitati

Union of India and Ors. Vs Vijender Pal — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2020)

¶1

$~2

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 978/2020 & CM APPL. No. 3170/2020 (stay) UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. G. Tushar Rao & Mr. Mayank Sharma, Advs. with Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Deputy Director. versus VIJENDER PAL ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajinder Nischal & Mr. Ashish Nischal, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI O R D E R % 05.02.2020 Learned counsel for the petitioners has handed-up Office

¶4

Memorandum (O.M.) dated 27.03.2012, para 12 of which we reproduce

¶5

below :

¶6

“

¶7

12. Departmental Candidates with three years continuous service in Central Government	For appointment to Group ‘C’ and erstwhile ‘D’ (now MTS posts)	Up to 40 years of age (45 years for SC/ST)
O.M. No. 15012/1/88-	by direct
Esst.(D) dated 30.01.1980 O.M. No. 15012/1/88-	recruitment which are in the same line or
Esst.(D) dated 20.05.1988	allied cadres.
O.M. No. 15012/8/87-	Group A and	5 years
Estt.(D) dated 15.10.1987	Group B posts	(for posts

¶8

	filled through	which are	in
O.M. No. 35014/4/79-	UPSC (other	the same l	ine
Esst.(D) dated 24.10.1985	than those filled	or all	ied
	on the basis of competitive examination) and posts which are exempted from purview of UPSC (where recruitment is made by organisation themselves.)	cadres where relationsh could establishe that service already rendered a particu _post will _ _useful for _ efficient _discharge _ the duties post. ”	and a ip be d the in lar be the of of

¶9

The petitioners cite the above OM in support of their contention that the age of the respondent cannot be relaxed beyond a period of 45 years, which includes relaxation of five years for SC/ST candidates. In support of his contention that such a ground was raised in the reply, which was however not considered by the Tribunal, counsel also relies on para 2 of his reply which was filed before the Tribunal, which we reproduce below :

¶10

“ 2. That the applicant Shri Vijender Pal, as per the records, was appointed as Peon in Dr. RML Hospital. The Recruitment Rules for the post of Head Supervisor stipulates the age limit for direct recruitment as 18-25 years. The age is relaxable for departmental candidate (who have completed three years regular service in the same line or cadre) up to the age of 40 years for Unreserved Candidate and 45 years for SC in terms

¶11

of instructions dated 27.03.2012 issued by the Department of personnel and Training, Government of India. A copy of the same is annexed as Annexure-I. As per the Recruitment Rules of the post, the Educational Qualification is (i) 12^th pass or equivalent qualification from a recognized Board or University, (ii) One year experience in dealing with sanitation in a recognized hospital having minimum 50 beds. The desirable qualification for appointment to the post of Head Supervisor is Diploma in Sanitary Inspector Course from a recognized Institute. The method of recruitment for the post is by promotion failing which by direct recruitment."

¶12

Learned counsel for the respondent however submits that in the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 10.08.2016 passed in O.A. 3930/2014 this issue has been put to rest; and the Tribunal has held that age relaxation for the entire period of service rendered in the Government should be given. Reliance is placed on para 5 of order dated 10.08.2016:-

¶13

" 5. We have heard both sides and have perused the material placed on record. In our opinion, the respondents have erred by not applying the DoP&T Instructions that were specifically relevant to the instant case. The applicants herein were registered with Employment Exchange for appointment to higher post (Group-C in their case) and were therefore, entitled to age relaxation for the entire period of service rendered by them under Government of India as per the Instructions relied upon by the applicant. They chose to rely on Instructions, which were relevant to all Government servants applying for appointment to Group-C posts and not

¶14

those Instructions relevant for Government servants, who were registered with Employment Exchange."

¶15

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, we are of the view that para 12 of O.M. dated 27.03.2012 requires consideration by the Tribunal. Accordingly, we dispose of this petition with the direction that if a review petition is filed by the petitioners, the Tribunal would consider and address the dispensation available in O.M. dated 27.03.2012.

¶17

We further make it clear that if a review application is filed within two weeks, Mr. Rajinder Nischal, learned counsel for the respondent agrees not to raise the plea of limitation.

¶18

All rights and contentions of both the parties are left open.

¶19

With the above directions, the writ petition and the pending application are disposed of.

¶20

Mr. Nischal also submits that till the review application is decided, he would not press contempt.

¶21

Order be given dasti .

¶22

G.S.SISTANI, J.

¶23

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.

¶24

FEBRUARY 05, 2020/ uj

Union of India and Ors. v. Vijender Pal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and Ors. v. Vijender Pal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Ikhalaque Vs Uioin of India & Ors.

Sh. Vinod Kumar Jain Vs Registrar of Cooperative Societies and Anr.

Jai Shankar Kirpa Mahavidhyalaya Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Madhulata Mallick Vs New Delhi Municipal Council (Ndmc) and Ors.

Siddhant Vikram Deshmukh Vs University of Delhi

Jharkhand Teachers Training College (D.El.Ed.) Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

The Management of Birla Textile Mills Vs Kanhiya Lal

Smt. Amita Mishra Vs the Commissioner East MCD and Ors.

Mohammad Ikhalaque Vs Uioin of India & Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Karam Chand

Renu Bhandari & Anr. Vs Ashok Garg

Nirmala Rani Vs Chief Secretary Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Madhubala Vs Chief Secretary Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Sushma Gupta Vs Chief Secretary Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.