WP (C) 7030/2011 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WRIT PETITION (C) No.7030/2011 % Date of Decision: September 23, 2011 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ....Petitioner Through Ms. Avnish Ahlawat and Ms. Latika Chaudhary, Advocates. VERSUS SHRI MUKESH KUMAR …..Respondents Through CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % SANJIV KHANNA, J. In the present writ petition filed by the Government of NCT of Delhi the assail is to the order dated 28th April, 2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (for short, „the tribunal‟). By the impugned decision the tribunal has allowed the original application filed by the respondent herein Mukesh Kumar, who in terms of the directions given by the Supreme Court in W.P.(C) 323-25/1989 decided on 4th February, 1992, was called for interview on 14th August, 2008 and appointed as a Peon in Ambedkar Institute of Technology on 26th August, WP (C) 7030/2011 Page 2 of 4 2008, but was removed/terminated on the ground that at the time of joining he was 43 years and 10 months and, therefore, was over aged. 2. There is no factual dispute. It is accepted that the respondent was engaged as a casual labourer with effect from 1st January, 1986 and it appears that he continued to work in small breaks. Later on he along with others was terminated leading to filing of W.P.(C) 323-25/1989 before the Supreme Court. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by the Supreme Court vide order dated 4th February, 1992 with a direction to the petitioner to keep the respondent and others in a panel, if they were registered with the employment exchange and qualified for appointment to the relevant posts. Preference in employment shall be given to them whenever vacancy occurs in regular course. The operative portion of the directions given by the Supreme Court, as quoted in the impugned order, reads as under:- “16. In the circumstances, it is not possible to accede to the request of the petitioners that the respondents be directed to regularize them. The most that can be done for them is to direct the respondent- Delhi Administration to keep them on a panel and if they are registered with the Employment Exchange and are qualified to be appointed on the relevant posts, give them a preference in employment whenever there occurs a vacancy in the regular posts, which direction we give hereby.” WP (C) 7030/2011 Page 3 of 4 3 The petitioner thereafter prepared a panel, but nothing substantial or steps to implement the directions were taken. The respondent along with 54 others filed O.A.No.1793/2000 before the tribunal, which was disposed of on 11th January, 2011. The tribunal reiterated the directions given by the Supreme Court and the petitioner was asked to take appropriate steps so that directions given by the Supreme Court were complied with, in letter and spirit. 4. As noted, the petitioner took their own time and only in August, 2008, the respondent was called for interview and after evaluating his performance, he was appointed as a Peon in Ambedkar Institute of Technology with effect from 13th October, 2008 and continued to work on the said post for about two years. It is not the allegation of the petitioner that respondent had misled the authorities about his date of birth or there was any suppression of fact or forging of documents. After the respondent had worked for more than two years, a show cause notice was issued that pursuant to an original application filed by one Omender Singh, it was noticed that the respondent was over aged. Therefore, his services were terminated. 5. The tribunal after considering the peculiar facts of the present case including the delay in appointment, the order passed by the Supreme WP (C) 7030/2011 Page 4 of 4 Court and thereafter by the tribunal and the fact that the respondent has worked for two years, the original application has been allowed. We may note that in case the respondent had not been appointed, the situation may have been different. The situation may have also been different in case the petitioner had been able to justify delay from 1992 to 2008. 6. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine without any order as to costs. SANJIV KHANNA, J. CHIEF JUSTICE SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 NA