Disposed

Megha Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC3 Apr 2024W.P.(C)/12152/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the High Court of Delhi held that a dis-engagement office order dated 14.09.2023 was absolutely non-stigmatic. The court found no restrictions preventing the petitioner from seeking future employment in any government or private sector, including the Ministry of Education.

What did the court decide?

The court held the dis-engagement order dated 14.09.2023 was non-stigmatic and found no restriction on the petitioner's future employment avenues.

Megha Sharma Vs Union of India & Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~51

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Judgment delivered on: 03.04.2024

¶4

- W.P.(C) 12152/2023 & CM APPL. 47759/2023 MEGHA SHARMA ..... Petitioner

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

¶7

Advocates who appeared in this case:

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr.Amit Gupta, Mr.Prateek Mehta, Mr. Shiv Verma, Mr. Anshul Luthra and Mr. Chirag Vohra, Advocates

¶9

For the Respondent : Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr. Ravi Prakash, CGSC with Ms. Astu Khandelwal, Mr.Y. Shukl and Ms. Taha Yasin, Advocates with Ms. Monica Mehra Officer for R-1 Mr. Farman Ali and Ms. Usha, Advocates for R-2 Mr. Saurabh Mishra, Ms. Bhumi Agrwal and Ms. Aasnaa Bhatia, Advocates for R-3

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. (ORAL)

¶13

[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ] CM APPL. 16759/2024

¶14

This is an application seeking early hearing of the petition.

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Digitally Signed By:VINOD KUMAR W.P.(C) 12152/2023 Signing Da te:0 9.04.2024 17:49:21

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. W.P.(C) 12152/2023

¶19

With the consent of the parties, the present petition is taken up for disposal today.

¶20

After some arguments, Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned CGSC has handed over the bench a letter addressed to him by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of India dated 27.03.2024 wherein the two queries put by this Court to the learned CGSC on 18.03.2024 have been responded to by way of comments.

¶21

The relevant portion of the letter dated 27.03.2024 is extracted as under:-

¶22

Sl.	Query / Observation	Comments of the Department
No.	of Hon’ble Court
1.	Whether the termination letter issued to the Petitioner is non- stigmatic and will not have a bearing on the Petitioner’s future employment avenues in any Government Department including the present Ministry.	At the outset, it is necessary to mention here that Consultancy Contract was executed between the Petitioner and Respondent no.3 (EdCIL) and there was no contract signed between the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 and the Petitioner. It is stated that the termination order was issued by the Respondent no.3 i.e. EdCIL to the petitioner, in furtherance of the view of minutes of evaluation of consultants, D/o SE&L, MoE issued the letter dated 11.09.2023 to the EdCIL. However, it ispertinent to

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Digitally Signed By:VINOD KUMAR W.P.(C) 12152/2023 Signing Da te:0 9.04.2024 17:49:21

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

mention here that the termination letter issued by the respondent no.3 EdCIL to the petitioner does not contain any stipulation or clauses that restrict him/her from seeking employment in any other government/private department, including the current Ministry. This absence of such constraints indicates that the termination letter does not impose any impediments on the consultant’s ability to explore new opportunities within the government sector or the private sector etc. Thus, it is evident that the termination letter does not debar the consultant from applying for other positions or pursuing avenues for career advancement.

¶27

After having considered the arguments addressed as also perusing the contents of the office order dated 14.09.2023, this Court is of the opinion that the said dis-engagement of the petitioner vide the aforesaid office order is absolutely non-stigmatic . That apart keeping in view the comments that has been tendered by the department by way of letter dated 27.03.2024 to the learned CGSC, it appears that department also does not have any objection and according to them the said letter does not contain any stipulation or clause that restrict her i.e. the petitioner

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed By:VINOD KUMAR W.P.(C) 12152/2023 Signing Da te:0 9.04.2024 17:49:21

¶30

Page 3 of 4

¶31

from seeking employment in any other government /private department, including the current Ministry.

¶32

To the mind of this Court, the aforesaid comments of the department make it even more clearer that the dis-engagement of the petitioner’s services by the office order dated 14.09.2023 is nonstigmatic. Moreover, the aforesaid comments also keep the option and avenues of the petitioner open to seek employment of any nature in any other government / private department, including the current Ministry.

¶33

In that view of the matter, the petition is disposed of by observing as under:-

¶34

(i) The order dated 14.09.2023 is absolutely non-stigmatic;

¶35

(ii) The petitioner does not face any restriction from seeking employment in any other government / private department, including the current Ministry, i.e., Ministry of Education.

¶36

In that view of the matter, Mr.Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits on instructions that the petitioner is satisfied. 10. In view of above, the petition is disposed of alongwith the pending application.

¶37

The letter dated 27.03.2024 is taken on record.

¶38

The next date, i.e. 26.07.2024 stands cancelled.

¶39

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.

¶40

APRIL 03, 2024 ms

¶41

Signature Not Verified

¶42

Digitally Signed By:VINOD KUMAR W.P.(C) 12152/2023 Signing Da te:0 9.04.2024 17:49:21

¶43

Page 4 of 4

Megha Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Megha Sharma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights and Anr. Vs Lieutenant Governor, NCT of Delhi through Principal Secretary and Others

Arvind Gupta & Ors. Vs Town Vending COMMITTEE-1 (TVC-1) through Chairperson, Town Vending Committee (Tvc) & Ors.

Supertech Engineers Vs Gail India Limited and Anr.

M/S Sk Associates through Its Proprietor Sanjeev Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Itc Limited Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

Prakritishri Aldaan & Anr. Vs Deepika Mittal

Delhi Jal Board Contractors Welfare Association Regd. Vs Delhi Jal Board & Anr.

Devendra Kumar Sharma Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 13-1, & Ors.

Rajinder S/O Phool Singh Vs Government of NCT Delhi & Ors.

Sh. Adesh Jain & Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Sh Adesh Jain Anr. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Pawan Yadav and Others Vs SHO and Another

Anguri Devi Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mohd. Arif Qasmi and Anr. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr.