Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 12.09.2025
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb, CGSC
Through: Mr. Ramesh Rawat, Adv.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM APPL. 58004/2025 (Exemption)
2. This application seeks permission to file lengthy synopsis and list of dates. CM APPL. 58005/2025
3. Having considered the contents of the application, the same is allowed.
4. This petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 19.11.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in O.A. No. 1322/2023, titled Anand Prakash Dube Group-C v. Union of India & Ors., disposing of the said O.A. filed by the respondent herein with the following direction: W.P.(C) 14131/2025 & CM APPL. 58003/2025
5. The admitted facts are that the respondent was working as a Lino Operator and was declared surplus. He made a representation to be absorbed as a D.T.P Operator or as an Offset Machine Man in terms of the Circular dated 29.06.2007. As, by an Order dated Nil, he was redeployed with effect from 16.05.2012 only as an Offset Machine Assistant, he approached the learned Tribunal by way of an O.A., being O.A. No. 2006/2013, which was allowed by the learned Tribunal vide its Order dated 08.10.2015 directing as under:
6. In compliance therewith, the petitioner issued an Order dated 22.09.2016 appointing the respondent as Offset Machine Man.
7. The respondent filed a contempt petition inter alia contending therein that his seniority had not been maintained. The said contempt petition was, however, disposed of by the learned Tribunal vide its Order dated 28.11.2016, reserving liberty in the respondent to agitate his grievances in accordance with law.
8. This liberty led in the respondent filing O.A. No. 1902/2017, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh vide Order 15.03.2023. This led to the filing of the third O.A., that is, O.A. No. 1117/2023, which again was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.04.2023 with liberty to file afresh.
9. The respondent then filed the present O.A., that is O.A. NO. 1322/2023, which, as noted hereinabove, has been allowed with the above quoted directions.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners, placing reliance on the Judgment of this Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Shri Om Prakash & Ors.,2023:DHC:2163-DB, as also the Order dated 09.05.2023 passed in the review petition filed in the above Writ Petition (2023:DHC:3182-DB), submits that the respondent having been absorbed to the post of Offset Machine Man in terms of paragraph 9 of the O.M. dated 19.05.2009 issued by the DoP&T, was not entitled to the grant of MACP benefit counting his initial appointment as Lino Operator.
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent who appears on advance notice submits that as far as the above issue is concerned, the same stands settled by repeated Judgments of not only the learned Tribunal but also of this Court. To this effect he places reliance on the Order dated 10.10.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 4008/2012 titled ID Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.; the Order dated 28.03.2017 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 10367/2016 titled R.N. Srivastava v. Union of India & Ors.; the Order dated 04.10.2021 passed by the learned Tribunal in a batch of OAs including O.A. No. 1868/2016 titled Vijay Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.; as well as the Order passed by this Court in the Writ Petition filed thereagainst.
12. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
13. In ID Sharma (supra), on a concession made by the petitioners themselves, the O.A. filed was allowed and the petitioners were directed to pass appropriate speaking and reasoned orders on the claim of the respondents.
14. This Court in R.N. Srivastava (supra) disposed of a writ petition challenging an Order passed by the learned Tribunal granting similar relief to others, by observing as under: “7) We find that even on merits the case, the stand of the respondents is ambiguous and unclear. The petitioner who was originally appointed as a Mono/Line Operator in 1973 was asked to work as a Key Board Operators (Offset) in 1989. Further there has been merger of pay scale of Rs.5000-8000, Rs.5500- 9000 and Rs.6500-10500. As noticed above, the respondents in response to the OA No.4008/2012 had conceded and accepted the entitlement to L. D. Sharma and 10 others. We would recognise and accept that this acknowledgement was after due deliberation and application of mind.
8) In these circumstances, we would not like to relegate the petitioner in to the another round of litigation, noticing that he has retired and grade pay of Rs.5400 stands granted to all other employees after due consideration by the respondents themselves. The respondents have not withdrawn the said grade pay, inspite of contention raised in the present proceedings. Possibly, they cannot in view of the judicial order.”
15. The petitioners again urged the same plea against other employees who had been similarly redeployed, and the learned Tribunal again rejected the same plea by an Order dated 04.10.2021 passed in a batch of OAs including Vijay Kumar (supra). The petitioners challenged this Order before this Court in W.P.(C) 5541/2022, titled Union of India and Ors. v. Vijay Kumar Sharma and Ors., which was rejected by this Court vide its Judgment dated 04.04.2022 again observing as under:
16. Instead of releasing the relief to the respondent on basis of the repeated pronouncements of this Court, the petitioners have again challenged the Order passed by the learned Tribunal before this Court. They placed reliance on the Judgment of Om Prakash (supra) in support of their plea. We would not like to comment on the same only for the reason that as far as the employees working on the post of Lino Operator who had been later redeployed, this Court has taken a consistent view and one set of employees cannot be discriminated against the other similarly situated employees. This Court has therefore, repeatedly directed the petitioners to release the same benefits to such employees which would herein include the respondent.
17. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present petition, the present petition, along with the pending applications, is dismissed.
18. The petitioners shall pay cost of Rs. 25000/- to the respondent for not releasing the benefit on its own to the respondents in spite of repeated pronouncements of this Court and instead dragging the respondent to a further round of litigation in this belatedly filed Writ Petition.
19. The petitioners shall comply with the direction of the learned Tribunal within a period of four weeks from today.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 12, 2025/bs/k/ik