W.P.(C)--269/2001. Case: NARESH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | W.P.(C)--269/2001 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | January 21, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on: 23rd December, 2014 Judgment Pronounced on: 21st January, 2015
W.P.(C) 269/2001
NARESH KUMAR SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Rekha Palli & Ms. Punam Singh, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. K.R. Gupta and Mr. Chandra
Nand Jha, Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
P.S.TEJI, J.
-
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 06.04.1998, passed by Youth Hostels Association of India (hereinafter referred to as respondent No.2) whereby his services were terminated and for passing of other or further orders in the circumstances of the case.
-
The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that petitioner was appointed as Accounts Assistant with Respondent No.2 on 25.04.1975 and was promoted to the post of Programme
Assistant and then to the post of Programme Officer
01.04.1981. The petitioner was re-designated as Programme Executive and was appointed as Executive Secretary vide dated 09.02.1989. On 22.01.1991, Respondent No.3-Sh. Sehgal was appointed as Assistant Secretary. The respondent No.2 employed respondent No.4-Sh. S.L. Prajapathi as Director (Programme and Marketing) w.e.f. 01.02.1998. On 06.04.1998, the petitioner received one month’s notice of termination under clause 9(2) of the Staff Service Rules, 1991 which reads as under:
“It has been decided to abolish the post of Executive Secretary (P&M) in the Association as a measure of economy and administrative grounds. Consequently your services are no longer required with effect from the afternoon of 6th May 98.
This letter may, therefore, be treated as one month notice required as per Clause 9(ii) of the Staff Service Rules, 1991 of the Association.”
The services of the petitioner were put to an end on ground that the post of Executive Secretary (P&M) had abolished as a measure of economy on administrative grounds. The petitioner claimed his termination as illegal and based on fide grounds inasmuch as the respondent No.2 appointed persons in place of the petitioner for doing the same job. It claimed that the respondent No.2 is a society performing public functions and is under the control of Ministry of Human Resources and Development and gets financial grants from them. It is further
claimed that the representative of the Ministry takes an active in the functioning of respondent No.2.
-
Ms. Rekha Palli, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.R. Gupta, counsel for respondent No.2 were heard in the matter who took through the case law and the record of the case.
-
From the writ petition and the counter affidavit, the first and foremost question arises for consideration is whether respondent No.2 is a “State” to make the petitioner amenable Article 226 of the Constitution of India and whether the Union India (hereinafter referred to as respondent No.1) is a necessary party.
-
The contention of the petitioner is that as per objects of respondent No.2, there is supervisory control of Department Youth Affairs & Sports, Government of India over the respondent No.2 in promoting youth hostel movement. A Central Policy Committee was set up by the Government of India to promote youth hostel movement which has been represented by National Chairman of the respondent No.2. Government of India is having financial...
To continue reading
Request your trial