( s-6&7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + w.P.(c) L382412OO9 . R.K.ARORA & ORS. ..'.. Petitioners Through: Ms.Kaadambari and Mr.sacchin Puri, Advocates, VCTSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.R.V.Sinha, Advocate w.P.(c) 1419412OO9 SURINDER SINGH & ORS .... PCtitiONCTS Through: Mr.V.S.R.Krishna, Advocate. VCTSUS UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr.R.V.Sinha, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG ORDER L4.o9.20t o 1. 150 officers working as Group 'C' and Group 'D' staff in the Directorate General of Income Tax (lnvestigation) had various issues pertaining to the service conditions being discriminatory vis-d-vis their counterparts in other divisions, in respect whereof the department realized that injustice was being done to them and for redressal of which the matter was referred to an t -;{ ? -\ o/o WP(c) Nos. 13824/09 & L4I94/ 09 Page 1 of 5 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified Anomalies Committee which submitted a report favourable to the said 150 persons. 2. As is usual in India, after reports are received, final decision was deferred for months and years together. lt is apparent that the patience of the said 150 persons was subjected to the extreme, compelling them to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal by and under OA No.1L64l2O06 which was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 2t.4.2007 . 3. In the order, the Tribunal recognized the grave discrimination being done with the 150 applicants before it. The Tribunal, in para 6 of its order, noted the stand of the respondents that they were cognizant of the problem faced by the 150 persons and were also aware that the Anomalies Committee had found merit in their grievances and had suggested measures to rectify their grievances. Accordingly, the Tribunal disposed of OA No.Lr-64l2006 with a direction that within 8 months the grievance of the 150 applicants, which grievances were found requiring redressal by the respondents, be suitably addressed. 4. Needless to state, the respondents had to restructure the cadre so that the discrimination, which was writ large vis-b-vis the 150 persons and their counterparts, was undone' This required amendment to the recruitment rules' 5. Unfortunately for 150 persons, giving no reasons why the recommendations of the Anomalies Committee were being rejected and taking a somersault vis-b-vis the stand consistently .l )t WP(c) Nos.13824/09 & L4I94/O9 Page 2 of 5 'v taken that the department was cognizant of the anomalies resulting in discrimination vis-b-vis the 150 persons, the respondents stated that they were unable to solve the problem on account of the complexity of the issues involved. This compelled the 150 persons to revisit the Tribunal by and under OA No.226612008. 6. Filing a response to the grievance of the petitioners, the respondents stated;- "7. Since, the matter is under the active consideration of the Cadre Review Committee and the sub-committee appointed for the purpose is to submit its report by the middle of March, the OA is devoid of any merit and it is prayed that it may be dismissed and costs awarded to the respondents " 7. Notwithstanding that in the response filed, the respondents took the stand that the Cadre Review Committee was reconsidering . the matter, response being filed on 24.2.2009, on 27.4.2009 the Tribunal dismissed OA No.226612008 giving reasons in para 15 as under:- "15. The Administration is complex and the Tribunal may not be justified in confining to examine one of the factors, only for the reason that there might be inequalities. Inequalities by themselves may not justify the Tribunal to straightway come with prescription. As referred to earlier, the Supreme Court had in P.C.Joshi (cited supra) adverted to the general nature of interference expected of courts in matters of policy decisions taken by the Government. May be some of the applicants, because of their age factor will not become eligible for ultimate benefits, likely to arise because of restructuring or and consequential opening of opportunities, But we have to bear in mind the larger interest of the establishment, is not the _! a4 WP(C) Nos.13824/09 & 14194/09 Page 3 of 5 ,v casualty. when it is possible to find that the issue as a whole pertaining to the Department are discussed and finalized, it will be a disservice to insist that the applicants' claims are to be separately chalked out and decided in advance. Urtimately thal may not even contribute to their better interest. In the circumstances, we find no good grounds to interfere. oA is dismissed. MA 25112009 also stands disposed of as of no consequence. No order as to costs.,, B. we are left completery foxed at the reasoning of the Tribunal. This is not the way to decide claims of persons and especially when the claims have been found to be meritorious in an earlier proceedings. Not only have the claims being found to be meritorious in the earlier proceedings but the respondents have consistently taken a stand that they find substance in the grievance of the petitioners and hence were in the process of finding a solution. 9. Merely because the solution to the problem is complex does not mean that the problem has to be thrown out of the window. 10. lf a problem is identified and the continuation of the problem is an injury to a set of employees, in the form of discrimination vis-d-vis their counterparts; the department has to find a solution and cannot say that it will adopt a hands off policy. 11. what surprised us the most is that the author of the judgment dated 2r.4.2007 is the same person who has authored the subsequent decision dated 2l.,4.2009. 12. Noting that the grievance of the petitioners is still alive; )7- WP(c) Nos.13824/09 & t4t94/os Page 4 of 5 1 \J ,4" J noting that none is disputing that the cadre structuring needs a re-cast; noting that none is disagreeing that the petitioners are being discriminated, w€ set aside the impugned order dated 2L.4.2009 and restore OA No.226612009 with a direction to the Tribunal to re-decide OA No.226612009 on merits and looking at the difficult attitude of the respondents, who on the one hand admit that there is a problem to be solved but on the other hand refuse to solve the problem, pass such appropriate directions which may be strictly. 13. Needless to state, law is clear. lf the Executive concedes that there is a problem but refused to solve the problem, it is permissible for the Court or Tribunal in said circumstance to issue appropriate directions which may even go to the extent of directing amendments to the existing recruitment rules. 14. No costs. 15. DASTI. ---^gtY PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. SEPTEMBER L4,?OLO dk ,! I I WP(C) Nos.13824/09 & 14194/09 Page 5 of 5