Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1951 - HC - Indian LawsTenor appointment - appointment of the appellant as Director General, CPRI - tenor of appointment order issued to the appellant vis-à-vis the term of appointment - when the appointment was to be on direct recruitment basis until the date of retirement on attaining the age of superannuation or until further orders, could it have been converted as an appointment for an initial tenure of five years or until further orders? HELD THAT:- The appointment of the appellant as Director General, CPRI, on a tenure basis is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Further, as opined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.K. Doshi (Dr.) Vs. Union of India [2001 (3) TMI 900 - SUPREME COURT] in the case of appointment to a post on tenure basis, the notion of retirement on attaining the age of superannuation does not apply. Whether, relief could at all be given to the appellant as according to the learned Single Judge, the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging his appointment for an initial tenure of five years only is hit by the principles of delay and laches? - HELD THAT:- There has been inter-departmental communications on the representations made by the appellant. However, the same could not be taken to its logical conclusion on account of the advertisement dated 18th February 2015 issued by the respondent calling for applications for the post of Director General, CPRI, lead to the appellant filing the writ petitions. On account of the filing of the writ petitions before this Court, no further steps were taken on the representations made by the appellant before the respective authorities - The doctrine of delay and laches is a salutary doctrine and it has been applied in innumerable cases by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this context, a plethora of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are available on the issue regarding delay and as to how a Court of equity exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would have to approach the issue. When the appellant filed his first writ petition, he was very much in service. He was relieved from service during the pendency of the first writ petition. This is not a case where after his termination, he instituted the writ petitions by way of an after-thought or after a long slumber, neither is the matter speculative in nature. Further, there was no delay in filing the second writ petition. Both the writ petitions were connected and heard together as the issues raised in them were intertwined. This aspect has been lost sight of by the learned Single Judge. As there was no delay or laches in filing the second writ petition, in order to consider the same, the issues arising in the first writ petition had to be also considered. But, both the writ petitions were not considered on merits and instead, learned Single Judge dismissed the first writ petition filed by the appellant herein on the ground of delay and laches and the second writ petition was rejected as not surviving for consideration. The first writ petition could not have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground of delay and laches, particularly when it was entertained in the early part of 2015 and was disposed off only in March 2018 and there was no delay in filing the second writ petition - it is held that the appointment of the appellant on a tenure basis for an initial period of five years is declared as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. That the appellant having been appointed by direct recruitment was required to be appointed from the date he assumed charge of the post up to 31st May 2019, the date of retirement on superannuation or until further orders, whichever was earlier. The termination of the appellant on completion of five years was also illegal although the same may have been in accordance with the appointment order issued to him. But, since the appointment on a tenure of five years is declared to be illegal, the termination is also bad in law. The appellant shall be entitled to be paid 50% (fifty per cent) of his salary plus proportionate Dearness Allowance with effect from 21st March 2015 till 31st May 2019 by taking into consideration the pay revisions and increments, as applicable - Further, the appellant shall be entitled to the pensionary benefits under New Pension Scheme as applicable to the appellant if he had been continued in service to the extent of employer's contribution. Appeal allowed.
|