T.A. No. 108/2007 ( C.W. No. 8001/2005 ) With T.A No. 09/2008 ( C.W. No. 7286/2006 ) T.A. No. 113/2007 ( C.W. No. 12399-400/2005 ). Case: 1. Ashwini Khullar, Planning Assistant, U. C. Cell, Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi, 2. Ambuj Sood, 3. K. M. Saxena, Assistant Director (Planning), Monitoring, Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi, 4. Trilochan Singh, Assistant Director ( Planning), Dwarka Project, New Delhi, 5. K. K. Marwah, Assistant Director ( Planning), New Delhi Vs 1. Delhi Development Authority, Vice Chairman, New Delhi, 2. Commissioner Planning, Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi, 3. Union of India, Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, New Delhi. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | T.A. No. 108/2007 ( C.W. No. 8001/2005 ) With T.A No. 09/2008 ( C.W. No. 7286/2006 ) T.A. No. 113/2007 ( C.W. No. 12399-400/2005 ) |
| Counsel | Atul Kumar, Arun Birbal, V. S. R. Krishna |
| Judges | M. Ramachandran (Vice Chairman) & Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda (Accountant Member) |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Judgement Date | February 17, 2009 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Judgment:
M. Ramachandran (Vice Chairman), (At Principal Bench Delhi)
-
As agreed by the parties, the three TAs were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. Representing the applicants Mr. Atul Kumar and Mr. V. S. R. Krishna had made
-
Apart from referring to the claims, it may not be necessary to go into further details, since the facts as highlighted by the applicants, and the possible impact arising from the amendment have been conceded by the respondents. Opportunity for promotion going solely by the position in the seniority list in force has been withdrawn because of the amendment. Mr. Arun Birbal, learned counsel for respondents submits that the amendment had been introduced taking notice of the administrative exigencies. Further there is no vested right on any Govt. servants to presume that the conditions of service would remain unaltered for all times, and will continue to bind the parties, without recourse for the authorities to opt for changes that might be required by passage of time. In other words, his submission is that when amendment had been incorporated in the statute for bringing better governance, it will not be possible for the applicants to contend that their rights for promotion stands adversely affected and for that reason the steps requires to be retraced by DDA. In any case, such claims are not justiciable. The counsel also pointed out that the apprehension of the applicants that they will remain stagnated for ever is also found to be not true, as all the qualified applicants have already obtained promotion. Therefore, the OA is misconceived.
-
We may examine the rival contentions on the above background. The applicants had straightaway led us to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.B. Desai & Another Vs. S.K. Khanolkar and Others ( 1007) 7 SCC 54). There, according to them, an identical provision had been examined by the Court and contentions similar in all respects as raised here had been upheld. Therefore, claims for a declaration that they continued to be entitled to claim promotion going by seniority alone was justifiable found, as sustainable and, therefore, required to be upheld.
-
Before going into the substance of the contentions raised by the parties, we may refer two technical objections which had been raised by the DDA, which according to them sufficiently entrained their right to claim relief as presented. First objection is that in case prayers are allowed, it definitely affect the right of third persons, who have now been given a statutory right for promotion on a priority basis as a direct result of the amendment. Since none of them had been impleaded as respondents, applications are liable to be rejected for non-joinder of necessary parties. Second and most important submission on the maintainability of the application is that so long as the amendment is in the statute book it may not be possible to uphold any claims of the applicants on the basis of seniority even if they have any merit. We may deal with the above two objections before going to the other aspects highlighted by the parties.
-
Normally, it is settled principle that persons who might possibly be affected because of a judgment are to be brought on the array of the parties so that it may be possible for them to present submissions which also could be taken notice of before final pronouncement on the issue. Judgment generally binds the parties alone, and if affected parties are...
To continue reading
Request your trial