DAYA DUA Vs. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A classic case of the respondents trying to wriggle out from the order passed by the Supreme Court of India. The petitioners have filed this writ petition, inter alia, praying that directions passed by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) No.473/88 dated 27.8.1999 be complied with by the respondent in a time bound manner. The second prayer of the petitioners are that they may be paid the same salary and allowances at par with the Central Government employees appointed in Group 'C' staff. The petitioners are working in the office of the Official Liquidator attached to the High Court of Delhi. To understand the controversy it may be noted that certain writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Calcutta and Kerala by the staff working with the office of Court Liquidator in Calcutta and Official Liquidator in Kerala. Petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court. Respondents preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. The Division Bench also affirmed the judgment of Calcutta High Court. It is important to quote from the judgment of the Supreme Court as follows :

(2.) Similarly, petition was filed before the Division Bench in Kerala High Court and Kerala High Court also took similar view as that of Calcutta High Court. The respondents preferred a Civil Appeal No.5642/94 in the Supreme Court of India. In the meanwhile, some of the persons who are working with the office of the Official Liquidator in Delhi also filed a Civil Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India directly in the Supreme Court and all these matters (Writ Petition (C) No.473/88 and Civil Appeals No.5642/94 and Civil Appeal 5677/94 were disposed of by the Supreme Court by a common order. The operative part of the order of the Supreme Court is in the following terms:-

(3.) Mr.Harish Chandra and Ms.Maninder Acharya, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have vehemently contended that Supreme Court has only directed to formulate a scheme on the basis of 1978 scheme. Therefore, no direction can be given for absorption or for giving any seniority to the petitioners after their absorption in terms of the modified policy of 1999 which is based on 1978 policy. It is also contended before me that there is no direction by the Supreme Court with regard to fixing of the seniority of such petitioners who have been absorbed. It has also been contended before me that there are no vacancies with the respondents and, therefore, the petitioners cannot be absorbed and no time-bound programme for their absorption can be given. In one of the writ petitions (CWP No.7491/2000) which has been filed by Group 'D' staff working in the office of the Official Liquidator, it has been contended by Ms.Manisha Dhir, counsel for the respondent that the issue of Group 'D' employees was not before the Supreme Court and no direction can be passed by this Court in this regard. It was further contended that in any event of the matter it is in the domain of the executive to create posts and High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not give direction for creation of posts. Reliance has been placed on State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Shramik Sangh & Ors. 1996 (1) SLR 303 and a decision of this court in Union of India Vs. Sh.J.S. Arora & Ors. CWP NO.3149/2001 decided on 30th January, 2002.