Union of India v. Ramesh Chander and Anr

ORDER

12.07.2013

¶1With consent of learned counsel for the parties we set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal on November 01, 2012 disposing of W.p.(C) 2547/2013 & W. P.(C)2626/2013 page 1 of3 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. OANo.1056/2012 and OA No.1071/2012, and remand the matter.

¶2The reason for the remand is the law declared by the Supreme Court in various decisions which have been noted by a Division Bench of this Court in its opinion dated April 12, 2013 deciding a batch of matters, lead matter being W.P.(C) No.8102/2012 UOI & Am. Vs. K.LTaneja & Anr. which needs to be considered by the Tribunal in view of the facts.

¶3The additional reason for the remand is that there are incompletepleadings by either side. It appears that pursuant to the DPC which met on April 04, 2012 a promotion order was issued on April 17, 2012, in which 91 persons were promoted with retrospective effect.

¶4It would therefore fall for consideration whether the law declared in the various decisions of the Supreme Court noted by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.8102/2012 would be applicable or keeping in view that the persons who were in service when the DPC met on April 04, 2012 were given promotion from retrospective dates would result in some other legal position emerging.

¶5Parties join in making a joint statement that the Original Application will be permitted to be amended to which the respondents before the Tribunal would be permitted to file a response and thereafter the Original Applications would be re-decided as per law.

¶6Parties shall appear before the Registrar of the Tribunal on August 19, 2013 by which date the Original Applicants before the Tribunal would file formal applications enclosing therewith the amended Original Applications. The formal applications would be allowed by the Registrar and the Original Applications as amended would be taken on record. W.p.(C) 2547/2013(6 W.P.(C) 2547/2013 page 2 of3 V. Oppoitunityshallbe grantedtothe respondentsbeforethe Tribunalto file a responseto the amendedOriginalApplications.

¶6No costs.

¶7DASTI. CM No.4832/2013 in W.e.(C) No.2547/2013 CM No.4979/2013 in W.P.fC) No.2626/2Q13 Dismissed as infructuous.

PRADEEP NA lJOG, J. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J JULY 12,2013 mamta W.P.(C) 2547/2013cfe W.P.(C)2626/2013 page3of3

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2547/2013 UNION OF INDIA Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate V.K.GUPTA AND ORS Represented by: W.P.(C) 2626/2013 UNION OF INDIA Represented by: versus Respondents Mr.Manish Garg, Advocate for R-1 Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Advocate with Mr.Vardhman Kaushik, Advocate for R-2 Petitioner Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate versus RAMESH GRANDER AND ANR. Respondents Represented by: Mr.Manish Garg, Advocate for R-1 Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Advocate with Mr.Vardhman Kaushik, Advocate for R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO %