'Sv^ •-^ww^, (STfl<d'i<o, R^i'yy ^Wvtl **11<* ~^ 200 SIlSRT 13W ('jBf^B^W) an^r.^i l^rig? va SIR^I ihii<* TOiiw^iftaan^i PETITIQNER RESPONDENTS PETITIONER 'bllfcll'l'f '<l*(fil tf fSC6 <I«i«,K ^aTRpIsn^l W.P.No.4192/2004 Union of India, Through Ministry of Health, Government of India, Through The Director, Regional Leprosy Training and Research Institute, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Versus K.P. Dewangan s/o Late Shri B.R. Dewangan, Accountant, Regional Leprosy Trainingand Research Instifcite, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. M.C. Dhomane s/o Late Shri Dinagee, Aged about 42 years, Working at Regional Leprosy Training and Research Institute, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 8.R.V. Sastry, s/o Shri S.R. Sastry, aged about 38 years, working at Regional Leprosy Training and Researeh Institute, Raipur, Chhattisgarh The Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Jabalpur, Through : Registrar, Cenfral Administrative Tribunai, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh W.P.No.41930004 Union of India, Through Ministry of Health, Government of India, Through The Director, Regional Leprosy Training and Research Institute, Raipur.Chhattisgarh »IIU<1<] ?t*T HCTRRl. Wil,--—'—FS/59— 8/2007 —30,000. TESf ^liqirt^, yiTf1*)'IC, Rl<?ilUy Nltldl **<!+ ^ 200 3IR!?T rfSSK (ipf^^I) SD^I.^iT Rt'fi* wn an^i **<i* ^giwotei sn^i ?- clTl^c'T-41'1 'qn^ff ^f 'fe^ <P*i<^,l< ^sffipT 311^1 RESPONDENTS IVersus |H.R. Mukherjee, s/o Shri B.R. [Mukherjee, Administrative Officer, |Regional Leprosy Training and IResearch Institute, Raipur, ihhattisgarh. fThe Central Administrative Tribunal, |Bench at Jabalpur, Through |Registrar, Central Administrative fTribunal, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. DB: HON'BLE SHRI L.C. BHAOOO & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. JJ Appearance: Shri Vinay Harit, Dy. Ad^ Panel Lawyer, for the petitioner/(Jnion Shri Pradeep Saxena| W.P.No.4193/2004. ocate Generai with Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, of India in both thewrit petitions. counsel for respondent No.1 in ORAL ORDER (2P.01.2008) Following order of the Cotirt was passed by LC.Bhadoo, J. Hsard. Writ petition No. 4192/2q04 and Writ petition No.4193/ 2004 are being disposed of by this comm(|in order as both the writ petitions involve the same question. .. m»f\v^fSv yvs •• • '•^iTii —FS/59— 8/2007 —30,000. -HC—78 Sf^SS ?SI R-)i+ cTKH ^fl^fT sti*iich 3sq' •^ww^, •a-^w'ie, ^^>wy. ^ '-4^ N1*1^1 *H|eb "^ 200 ani?r ^BTO (1pf5^?f) ^ITW^lfi^ OT^T By these writ Constitution of India, the correctness of the orde Applications by the Cent dated 6.10.2004 (Annexu the Union of India for fran" The brief facts lea respondents in these period of 6 months or til some time, the rules ^ continued on adhoc basi original posts. The resp Central Administrative Trii impugned order dated respondents were reject| herein, was directed to fl months. Since, Union ^ within thestipulated timej months, which was also| same has been challeng^ Shri Vinay Harit s| and the same were sent approval, but till date th^ Commission, therefore, ft| About more than ^ by the Central p^titions pejtitions Administilative ^if^i^}^^ Ht+Knl Tf,fs'<1 <P^'(^)< ^sifOTSd^r •titions filed under Article 226/227 of the petitioner-Union of India has questioned the • dated 24.9.2003, passed in both Original •al Administrative Tribunal and also the order re P-2), whereby the extension sought for by ing the rules was rejected. ding to filing these writ petitions are that the were promoted on acfhoc basis for a the recruitment rules are framed. For quite ere not framed and the respondents were Later on, they were reverted back to their sndents questioned their reversion before the bunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 478/2000 and vide 24th September, 2003; the petitions of the id. However, the Union of India, petitioner ame the recruitment rules within a period of 6 f India could not frame the recruitment rules extension was sought for a further period of 6 reiected vide order dated 6.10.2004 and the d in these writ petitions. jbmits that thereafter draft rules were framed to the Union Public Service Commission for its rules are lying with the Union Public Service rther15 days time be granted. years have elapsed since the directions given Tribunal and thereby more than enough an^T.^I K-fiih WITSIK^I **<!+ B. 'a- •3v^ '<l|Aji0<f, BTfly'Ko, faj01U^< W^V{\ **^tcb ^ 200 M^T 'viw (lyf-i»i<ti) TCIIW-dft^ 3fl^[ ^- time has been allowed. Department/Ministry of the peti' Service Cpmmission for approv^i not be delayed for an indefinite part of the concerned Departmi appears that on account of lc department, the petitioner is not Under the circumstancesj of these petitions will be a misi would be appropriate that these| order granted eariier is vacate^ allowed. Accordingly, these p^t granted on 24.11.2004 stands VE The petitioner-Union of 1( Service Commission for their ea( Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Jiidge' °ni<<I<']4l *lHi?iT'iffSIZt <Rl<^lt '^3ffiR 311^1 is the duty of the concerned foner to pursue with the Ltnion Public of the rules. Framing of rules could Iperiod. Reasons for such delay on the [nf/Ministry have not been explained. It litehes on the part of the concerned ^etting approval bythe U.P.S.C. we are of the opinion that continuation |se of the judicial process; therefore, it petitions are disposed of and the stay I, as sufficient time has already been •titions are disposed of and the stay icated. idia may pursue with the Union Public ly approval ofthe rules. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge 5itH€t4^t^r —FS/59— 8/2007 —30,000.