- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 7 February 2008
- Bench
- A.K.Sikri, J.M. Malik
- Case no.
- W.P.(C) 2411/2006
Judgment
A.K. SIKRI, J. February 07, 2008
J.M. MALIK, J. mv
Case details
Parties and counsel
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 07.02.2008 + Ex-Sub (Clk (GD)) Gurlaljit Singh Sandhu S/o Late Milkha Singh Sandhu, R/o 44, Guru Ram Das Avenue, Anjala Road (Near U.K.International Place), Amritsar – 143001 (PUNJAB) .... Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi 2. Chief of Army Staff South Block, New Delhi 3. Director Personnel Coordination and Personnel Directorate/E1A, Engineer-in-chief's Branch, Army Headquarters, Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, DHQPO, New Delhi – 110 011 4. Officer-in-Charge Records Bengal Engineer Group Records, Roorkee – 247667 5. Chief Engineer, Jallandhar Zone, Jallandhar Cantt., Jallandhar ... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case : For the petitioner : Ms.Jyoti Singh, Advocate For the respondents : Mr.Manoj Ohri with Mr.S.B.Sharma, Advocate CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1.Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2.To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3.Whether the judgment should be Yes reported in the Digest? A.K.Sikri, J. (Oral) * 1. We had heard this matter at length on 5th February, 2008. After hearing both the parties we proceeded to dictate the judgment, however, after the order was substantially dictated, the learned counsel for the respondent sought a short adjournment as he wanted to look into the matter further. We granted that opportunity to learned counsel for the respondent and adjourned the matter for today. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondent further on the issue. Since on 5th February, 2008 we had recorded the order substantially, it would be appropriate to recapitulate the factual matrix stated therein. 3. The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army as Clerk(GD) on 13th December, 1977. He was promoted from time to time and rose to the rank of Subedar and on attaining the age of superannuation, after serving for 38 years, he retired from service on 31st December, 2005. 4. Much before his retirement i.e. in August, 2004, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, with a view to rehabilitate to ex-servicemen and as a welfare measure decided to allot 10% quota for ex-servicemen Clerks(GD) for the post of Lower Division Clerks in the Military Engineering Service(MES) as a deputation cum employment measure. SRO no.129 dated 18th August, 2004 was issued to this effect. Thereafter this provision was given statutory recognition as the aforesaid notification dated 18th August, 2004 was published in the Gazette of India dated 4th September, 2004 titled as "Military Engineering Services Group-C (Assistant, UDC and LDC) Recruitment Rules, 2004. These are framed by the President of India in exercise of powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. The Notification further stipulates that they shall come into the force on the date of their publication in the official gazette. As they were published in the Gazette dated 4th September, 2004, the said Rules thus came into effect from 4th September, 2004. 5. Few months after his retirement i.e. on 7th July, 2005, the petitioner made application for appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk in Military Engineering Services through proper channel under the aforesaid rules. This application has however been not considered and the petitioner is denied the benefit. Challenging the decision, the present writ petition is filed. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent it is stated that after the aforesaid Notification was issued, the matter was processed and it took considerable time in formulation of the policy. Ultimately signal dated 11th July, 2005 was issued whereby it was decided that personnel due to retire between 1st January, 2006 to 30th June, 2006 would be considered for 'deputation cum re-employment' as Lower Division Clerks as per the said policy. According to the respondents as the petitioner retired before 1st January,
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.