The Delhi High Court, in a matter, upheld the plea of the petitioners filed to be placed at par and demanded equal treatment like all his batch-mates as per Central Civil Service (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. The same was observed in a recent matter of Kamlesh Singh Kushwaha v. The Director (RL) and Ors. [W.P. (C) 3248 /2019]. The proceedings of the above case were held on 10th September 2021, and the proceedings were presided by a division bench, consisting of Justice Rajiv Shakdher & Justice Talwant Singh.
The comprehensive facts of the case concerning are as follows. The writ petition had been filed impugning the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. As per petitioners, he was re-instated in the service, of which he was terminated after 10 years of service. However, the reinstatement was contended to be in violation with the Recruitment Rules as instituted under Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.
The petitioner also submitted that that the order was passed after hearing the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respondents and those submissions were also recorded and considered in the said order by Central Administrative Tribunal. Thus, it could not be said that the respondents did not get the opportunity to defend themselves.
The tribunal considered that petitioners had given 10 years of services without any complaint. Further his work wasn’t even unsatisfactory to endorse his disqualification from the service. The Tribunal ordained that “there is no allegation of any misconduct against the petitioner which makes it undesirable to permit him to continue to serve the respondent. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either of the parties, reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith.”
The matter was again reinstituted in the Delhi High Court. The court, after observing the facts, evidences scrutinized and hearing the counsels, opined that “Insofar as the petitioner’s grievance is concerned, that respondents have taken steps, in the interregnum, which are detrimental to his interest, the Tribunal, inter alia, will examine this grievance as well, and grant relief, if it falls within the purview of the pending OA. In case, the grievance articulated by the petitioner does not fall within the purview of the pending OA, the petitioner will have liberty to file a separate action, as per law.”
In furtherance to the above, the court giving its final verdict also held that the petitioner’s “grievance appears to be that, he is not placed at par with officers in his batch i.e., 2008 batch, therefore, it may be possible to grant this relief to the petitioner in the pending OA, as part of consequential relief……..”