Full Text
LPA 275/2015
HARSH TIWARI & ORS Appellants Represented by: Ms.Rashmi Chopra, Advocate
Represented by: Ms.Anjana Gosain, Adv. with Mr.Amab Naskar, Advocate for R-1
Ms.Latika Chaudhary, Advocate for R-2 & 3
ABDUL ALEEM & ORS Appellants Represented by: Ms.Rashmi Chopra, Adv.
Represented by: Ms.Anjana Gosain, Adv. with Mr.Amab Naskar, Advocate for R-1
Ms.Latika Chaudhary, Advocate for R-2 & 3
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
05.05.2015 CM No.8226/2015 in LPA 275/2015 & CM No.8237/2015 in LPA 277/2015
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
2015:DHC:11738-DB 2^ LPANo.275/2015 &LPANO.277/2015
ORDER
1. Appellants in the two captioned appeals had filed writ petition seeking regularization/permanent employment under the second respondent, abody having all features of being the instrumentality of the State i.e. the Government of NCT ofDelhi.
2. After the writ petition was filed, office order dated February 16, 2015 was issued by the Government ofNCT ofDelhi, which reads as under:- Government ofNational Capital Territory ofDelhi (Services Department-Branch-IV) Level, B-=Wing, Delhi Secretariat, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002 No.F.19(01)/2014 (S-IV/223-224 Dated: 16.02.2015
1. AllPr.Secretaries/Secretaries/HODs, Govt. OfN.C.T. of Delhi
2. All Heads ofLocal Bodies/Autonomous Bodies/Undertaking/Corporation/Boards/Institutions under GNCTD, Govt.ofN.C.T. ofDelhi Subject: Regarding engagement of contractual employees. The Government ofN. C. T ofDelhi would like to take a view on the existing policy regarding status of contractual employees engaged in various departments and organizations under this Government. Therefore, services ofcontractual employees engaged by the departments would NOT be terminated till further instructions in the matter. Ifany terminations are like to take place, the same should be stopped tillfurther orders. Sd/- (Ashutosh Kumar) SPL.SECRETARY (SERVICES) " LPA 275/2015 &LPA 277/2015 page[2] of[3]
3. In view thereofthe appellants were rightly advised to withdraw the writ petitions because there was a possibility of their services being regularized. Of course, if the services were not regularized the appellants would have desired the Court to grant them permission to revisit the Court by filing fresh petitions. The reason was obvious. The policy decision dated February 16, 2015 blew away the looming clouds of discontinuation of service; but there was a possibility of the clouds reforming. In other words reformation ofthe clouds would be a subsequent cause of action.
4. Vide impugned order dated February 23, 2015, granting liberty notto press the petitions and with right to revisit the Court, the learned Single Judge has hedged a condition. It is trite that if a party seeks to withdraw a pending proceeding on a term, the jurisdiction of the Court is limited to either allow to withdraw on the terms or to refuse the withdrawal on the term. The Court cannot hedge in a term of withdrawal.
5. Under the circumstances, both the appeals are disposed of setting aside the impugned order dated February 23, 2015. WP(C)4221/2014 and 4239/2014 filed by the appellants are permitted to be withdrawn with liberty granted to approach the Court if decision taken pursuantto the office memorandum dated February 16, 2015 is adverse to the interest of the appellants.
6. No costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAyOG, J. PI^TIBHA RANI, J. MAY 05,2015 skb