Full Text
Translation output
?---
$"-
2/c
% 0s.04.2013
Plcscnt: Ms Kanika Agnihotra, Adv. for the petitioncr.
Mr Ilarprect Singh, Adv. for the lespondont.
'f W.P.(C) No. tf2l2011
'l'his rvlit pctition is dircctcd against the order passccl by Ccnttal Adrninistlativc
'fribunal, Ncr.r' I)clhi, on 12.08.2010 in O.A. No. 172612010. 'l'hc rcsponclcnt had arpproachcd 1hc 'l'r'ibunal bcing aggrieved by an ordcr datcd 05.05.2010. 'lhat orclcr was passcd subscclucnt to an carlier order passcd by thc'fribunal on 1ti.03.2010 clircoting thc pctitioncr hercin to consider the rcprcscnlation o1'tlic rcspondcnt for grant of cxtcnsion of onc year after the rcspondcnt had supcraltnuatocl on tho gloLurd thal" sho was an NDMC awardec teachcr.
'I'hc rcsponclcnt had rclied upon the NDMC resolution N<1. 3(xix) datcd
04.03.1998. 'l'hc pctitioncr, horvever, rejccted the reprcscntation of thc lcspondcnt by virtuc o1'thc saicl order dated 05.05.2010 stating that thcro rvcrc alrcacly morc assistant l.cachcrs in placc tlran thc sanctioncd strength and, in any cvcnt, thc said rcsolution
No. 3(xix) clated 04.03.1998 had not fi'uctified into a rcgulation unclcr scction 43 ot tlro NI)MC Act, 1944 ancl therefore coulcl no1 be givcn tho status of a dcomcd tcgulation. 'l'hc 'J)'ibunal, however, agreed with thc vierv espouscd by tho rcspondcnt ancl dirccted the pctitioncl to consider the respondent's casc lor cxtcnsion of scrvicc in tct'ms of thc said rcsolution datcd 04.03.1998 within a period of t'uvo montlrs.
'l'hc pctitioncr (NI)MC) is aggrievcd by that ordor. A1icr having hcald thc lcatnccl counscl for thc parties, we find that even if thc lvrit pctition is disrnisserl, thc rcspondcnl i,vould gct no benefit inasmuch as thc rcspondcnt could. at bcst, havc got an extcttsiou of onc year fi'om the date of her superannuation which u'as 31.01.2010. ln othcr ,rvords, shc cottld havc served as assistanl tcachcr on cxtcnsion up to
31 .01.201 I . 'l'hat period has elapsed a long tirne ago. Wc fccl that rvithout going into thc rncrits ancl rvithout making any observation as to whcthcr that tho irrrpugncd orclcr clatccl 12.08.2010 would stand on merits, thc wlit pctition has virtually bcconrc inh'r-rotuons.
Whcn 1hc'I'r'ibunal had dircctcd considelation of thc lcspctnclcnt's casc, it wtrs incuurbcnt upon thc pctitioner to have considercd the casc r.vithin thc timc stipulatccl.
$"-
2/c
% 0s.04.2013
Plcscnt: Ms Kanika Agnihotra, Adv. for the petitioncr.
Mr Ilarprect Singh, Adv. for the lespondont.
'f W.P.(C) No. tf2l2011
'l'his rvlit pctition is dircctcd against the order passccl by Ccnttal Adrninistlativc
'fribunal, Ncr.r' I)clhi, on 12.08.2010 in O.A. No. 172612010. 'l'hc rcsponclcnt had arpproachcd 1hc 'l'r'ibunal bcing aggrieved by an ordcr datcd 05.05.2010. 'lhat orclcr was passcd subscclucnt to an carlier order passcd by thc'fribunal on 1ti.03.2010 clircoting thc pctitioncr hercin to consider the rcprcscnlation o1'tlic rcspondcnt for grant of cxtcnsion of onc year after the rcspondcnt had supcraltnuatocl on tho gloLurd thal" sho was an NDMC awardec teachcr.
'I'hc rcsponclcnt had rclied upon the NDMC resolution N<1. 3(xix) datcd
04.03.1998. 'l'hc pctitioncr, horvever, rejccted the reprcscntation of thc lcspondcnt by virtuc o1'thc saicl order dated 05.05.2010 stating that thcro rvcrc alrcacly morc assistant l.cachcrs in placc tlran thc sanctioncd strength and, in any cvcnt, thc said rcsolution
No. 3(xix) clated 04.03.1998 had not fi'uctified into a rcgulation unclcr scction 43 ot tlro NI)MC Act, 1944 ancl therefore coulcl no1 be givcn tho status of a dcomcd tcgulation. 'l'hc 'J)'ibunal, however, agreed with thc vierv espouscd by tho rcspondcnt ancl dirccted the pctitioncl to consider the respondent's casc lor cxtcnsion of scrvicc in tct'ms of thc said rcsolution datcd 04.03.1998 within a period of t'uvo montlrs.
'l'hc pctitioncr (NI)MC) is aggrievcd by that ordor. A1icr having hcald thc lcatnccl counscl for thc parties, we find that even if thc lvrit pctition is disrnisserl, thc rcspondcnl i,vould gct no benefit inasmuch as thc rcspondcnt could. at bcst, havc got an extcttsiou of onc year fi'om the date of her superannuation which u'as 31.01.2010. ln othcr ,rvords, shc cottld havc served as assistanl tcachcr on cxtcnsion up to
31 .01.201 I . 'l'hat period has elapsed a long tirne ago. Wc fccl that rvithout going into thc rncrits ancl rvithout making any observation as to whcthcr that tho irrrpugncd orclcr clatccl 12.08.2010 would stand on merits, thc wlit pctition has virtually bcconrc inh'r-rotuons.
Whcn 1hc'I'r'ibunal had dircctcd considelation of thc lcspctnclcnt's casc, it wtrs incuurbcnt upon thc pctitioner to have considercd the casc r.vithin thc timc stipulatccl.
2013:DHC:7461-DB
2-l
Ilacl that bccn thc ozrsc, perhaps, the respondcnt would havc bccn in a position to approach this Tribunal, if it r,vas still aggrievcd by thc dccision of thc pctitionor.
Ilowcvcr. thc pctitioncr clicl not consider the casc of thc rcspondont within thc tinc stipglatccl an<l it is only when the rcspondent filed a contcmpt application bcforc thc
'fribugal that the prcsont writ petition was movcd by thc pctitioncr. 'l'hc rcspondcnt has bccl draggcci to this oourt by virtue of thc fact that thc pctitioncr dicl not act r.vith diligcncc pursuant to thc dircctions given by the Tribunal.
Whilc wc arc not intcrfcring with the ordel passcd by thc 'Jlribunal particularly becausc this petition has now become infructuous, rvc fecl that thc rcspondcnt closcrvcs an or<icr of costs in her favour inasmuch as shc has been dtaggcd in this litigation Llnnoccssarily. l'lic issue of the applicability and cffcct of thc said rcsolution
No. 3(xix) clatcd 04.03.1998 is lelt open.
Ip viow of thc above, this writ petition is disposcd of rvith tho dircction that thc pctitioncr shall pay costs to the rcspondent which we quantily at { 20,000/-. 'fhc said costs bc paid rvithin threc weeks.
APRIL 05,2OI3 kb
L
UIUfnZ AIIMIIID, J
TIARTIT MllIl)[IL,.]
2013:DHC:7461-DB
2-l
Ilacl that bccn thc ozrsc, perhaps, the respondcnt would havc bccn in a position to approach this Tribunal, if it r,vas still aggrievcd by thc dccision of thc pctitionor.
Ilowcvcr. thc pctitioncr clicl not consider the casc of thc rcspondont within thc tinc stipglatccl an<l it is only when the rcspondent filed a contcmpt application bcforc thc
'fribugal that the prcsont writ petition was movcd by thc pctitioncr. 'l'hc rcspondcnt has bccl draggcci to this oourt by virtue of thc fact that thc pctitioncr dicl not act r.vith diligcncc pursuant to thc dircctions given by the Tribunal.
Whilc wc arc not intcrfcring with the ordel passcd by thc 'Jlribunal particularly becausc this petition has now become infructuous, rvc fecl that thc rcspondcnt closcrvcs an or<icr of costs in her favour inasmuch as shc has been dtaggcd in this litigation Llnnoccssarily. l'lic issue of the applicability and cffcct of thc said rcsolution
No. 3(xix) clatcd 04.03.1998 is lelt open.
Ip viow of thc above, this writ petition is disposcd of rvith tho dircction that thc pctitioncr shall pay costs to the rcspondent which we quantily at { 20,000/-. 'fhc said costs bc paid rvithin threc weeks.
APRIL 05,2OI3 kb
L
UIUfnZ AIIMIIID, J
TIARTIT MllIl)[IL,.]
2013:DHC:7461-DB
JUDGMENT