Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA No.172/2009 & C.M. Nos.5694, 5696 OF 2009
UDAI BHAN TIWARI & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. S.D. Singh, Advocate.
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Virendra Kumar Singh,
Adv. for respondent No.1.
Mr. Ajay Kapur with Mr. G.
Panmei & Ms. Savita Rajdor,
Advocates for respondent
No.2/ITDC.
Mrs. Francesca Kapur,
Adv. for respondent No.4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL
O R D E R
% 25.05.2009
1. The present appeal arises out of impugned order dated
18.3.2008. The appellants before us had moved an application in a
disposed of writ petition. The said application was dismissed.
Consequently, the present appeal has been filed.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants
(original petitioners in the writ petition) had filed a writ petition where
their grievance was to the legality of ITDC decision to handover the
management of the Hotel Ashok, Varanasi. The appellants had also
prayed for a direction that they should be posted to some other unit
of the ITDC. By judgment and order dated 1.5.2006, the writ petition
was disposed of. It was noted in the said judgment that as far as the
first issue was concerned, the correctness of the policy decision was
pending consideration by the Supreme Court under Article 139 A
LPA No.172/2009 Page No. 1 of 3
which had been invoked to consolidate and transfer writ petitions
pending before various High Courts. As far as the second issue was
concerned, the court felt that though the appellants had established
that they had represented for their transfer, there was no
corresponding obligation on the ITDC to accede to the request. The
court refrained from giving any directions on this issue, however,
upon a submission made by the newly added transferee, they were
required to issue letters of appointment and further grant ten weeks’
time to the appellants to report for duties at Maharaj Ganj, where the
unit was located. It was stated before the learned single judge by the
appellants that they had reported to the unit in compliance with the
court orders but were prevented from taking charge of their posts.
3. It is pertinent to mention here that the appeal filed by the
appellants against the judgment dated 1.5.2006 was rejected on
17.7.2006. The learned single judge rightly held that the claim for
absorption in some unit of ITDC or entitlement for VRS as was
sought, stood concluded. The learned single judge also rightly
observed that as far as the reliefs against the transferee were
concerned, the court had merely recorded their claim to accept the
appellants in their employment and had made consequential
arrangements. It was premised by way of concession since on the
merits. the appellants’ reliefs had been declined.
4. Even today during the course of hearing the counsel for
the transferee submitted that they were willing to permit the
appellants to join duty at the Maharaj Ganj unit, however, counsel
for the appellants submitted that they were not inclined to do so.
LPA No.172/2009 Page No. 2 of 3
Further, we also attempted to explore a settlement whereby some
lump sum payment could be made to the appellants in full and final
settlement of the disputes, however, even this was not acceptable to
the appellants.
5. In view of what is stated hereinabove, we find no
infirmity in the findings of the learned single judge. Moreover, the
application could not have been moved by the appellants in a
disposed of writ petition. The appeal must fail and is accordingly
dismissed. However, it is open to the appellants to raise their
disputes in accordance with law before the appropriate forum. All
pending applications stand disposed of as well. It is ordered
accordingly.
CHIEF JUSTICE
NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J.
MAY 25, 2009
‘AA’
LPA No.172/2009 Page No. 3 of 3
+ LPA No.172/2009 & C.M. Nos.5694, 5696 OF 2009
UDAI BHAN TIWARI & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. S.D. Singh, Advocate.
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Virendra Kumar Singh,
Adv. for respondent No.1.
Mr. Ajay Kapur with Mr. G.
Panmei & Ms. Savita Rajdor,
Advocates for respondent
No.2/ITDC.
Mrs. Francesca Kapur,
Adv. for respondent No.4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL
O R D E R
% 25.05.2009
1. The present appeal arises out of impugned order dated
18.3.2008. The appellants before us had moved an application in a
disposed of writ petition. The said application was dismissed.
Consequently, the present appeal has been filed.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants
(original petitioners in the writ petition) had filed a writ petition where
their grievance was to the legality of ITDC decision to handover the
management of the Hotel Ashok, Varanasi. The appellants had also
prayed for a direction that they should be posted to some other unit
of the ITDC. By judgment and order dated 1.5.2006, the writ petition
was disposed of. It was noted in the said judgment that as far as the
first issue was concerned, the correctness of the policy decision was
pending consideration by the Supreme Court under Article 139 A
LPA No.172/2009 Page No. 1 of 3
which had been invoked to consolidate and transfer writ petitions
pending before various High Courts. As far as the second issue was
concerned, the court felt that though the appellants had established
that they had represented for their transfer, there was no
corresponding obligation on the ITDC to accede to the request. The
court refrained from giving any directions on this issue, however,
upon a submission made by the newly added transferee, they were
required to issue letters of appointment and further grant ten weeks’
time to the appellants to report for duties at Maharaj Ganj, where the
unit was located. It was stated before the learned single judge by the
appellants that they had reported to the unit in compliance with the
court orders but were prevented from taking charge of their posts.
3. It is pertinent to mention here that the appeal filed by the
appellants against the judgment dated 1.5.2006 was rejected on
17.7.2006. The learned single judge rightly held that the claim for
absorption in some unit of ITDC or entitlement for VRS as was
sought, stood concluded. The learned single judge also rightly
observed that as far as the reliefs against the transferee were
concerned, the court had merely recorded their claim to accept the
appellants in their employment and had made consequential
arrangements. It was premised by way of concession since on the
merits. the appellants’ reliefs had been declined.
4. Even today during the course of hearing the counsel for
the transferee submitted that they were willing to permit the
appellants to join duty at the Maharaj Ganj unit, however, counsel
for the appellants submitted that they were not inclined to do so.
LPA No.172/2009 Page No. 2 of 3
Further, we also attempted to explore a settlement whereby some
lump sum payment could be made to the appellants in full and final
settlement of the disputes, however, even this was not acceptable to
the appellants.
5. In view of what is stated hereinabove, we find no
infirmity in the findings of the learned single judge. Moreover, the
application could not have been moved by the appellants in a
disposed of writ petition. The appeal must fail and is accordingly
dismissed. However, it is open to the appellants to raise their
disputes in accordance with law before the appropriate forum. All
pending applications stand disposed of as well. It is ordered
accordingly.
CHIEF JUSTICE
NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J.
MAY 25, 2009
‘AA’
LPA No.172/2009 Page No. 3 of 3