OMPRAKASH YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited this Court's attention to the judgment rendered by Delhi High Court in Writ Proceedings being Nos. W.P. (C) 1951 of 2012, W.P. (C) 389 of 2013, W.P.(C) 480 of 2013, W.P.(C) 1119 of 2013, W.P.(C) 3478 of 2013, W.P.(C) 4859 of 2013, W.P.(C) 6771 of 2013, W.P.(C) 8076 of 2013, W.P.(C) 3524 of 2014, W.P.(C) 6092 of 2015, W.P.(C) 7204 of 2015, W.P.(C) 11227 of 2017, W.P.(C) 11228 of 2015, W.P.(C) 11233 of 2015, W.P.(C) 5222 of 2016, W.P.(C) 8336 of 2016, W.P.(C) 12593 of 2018, W.P.(C) 12691 of 2018, W.P. (C) 12692 of 2018 and submitted that the superannuation age of 57 years under Rule 12 of the CRPF (General Duty) Officer Recruitment Rules 2001 has been strucked down and further proceedings taken out of the same judgment in the Supreme Court has no effect of staying the said judgment. He has also pressed into service the order passed by the Delhi High Court on 30.5.2019 in proceedings of Writ Petition (C) 6424 of 2019 and submitted that the said observations would support his contention. The counsel for the petitioner invited Court's attention to the Page 18A, which is typed copy of the order, indicating that the petitioner would stand superannuating on attaining the age of 57 years on 30.6.2019.

(3.) We are of the considered view that in case if the contention canvassed on behalf of the petitioner at bar is correct, then, it is clear indication of not only a recalcitrant approach on the part of the respondents but a blatant flouting of the Court's order and such an approach cannot be countenanced in any manner. However, as the order was passed on 11.1.2019, at this stage, we are of the view that instead of granting any interim order, let the authority be given an opportunity to come forward and indicate as to why the order impugned shall not be quashed and set aside. The Court is therefore inclined to issue notice for final disposal and is made returnable on 19.6.2019. It is made very clear to the concerned respondents that as the Court has issued this notice for final disposal, the reply affidavit, if any, shall be filed on the returnable date, so that adjournment could be avoided and matter be taken up for further orders and hearing. As at this stage, the Court has not passed any interim order only with a view to afford an opportunity to the respondents for responding to the contentions of the petition, failure on the part of the respondent in filing the reply on the next date, would leave this Court with no other option but to pass further order of staying the order.