John Dayal and Another vs UOI and Another

Rajiv Shakdher, J.—The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks deletion of petitioner no. 2 from the array of parties. This request is not opposed. Accordingly, petitioner no. 2 is deleted from the array of parties. Mr. Saqib, who appears for respondent nos. 1 and 3 and Mr. Moonis, who appears for respondent no. 2, say that they do not wish to file a reply and are quite happy to argue the matter based on the record available with the court. The learned counsels, however, seek to rely upon a clarificatory circular which was issued on 26.03.2013, post the hearing in the captioned writ petition on the said date.

With the request of counsels, the petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.

By this writ petition, a challenge is laid to a circular dated 15.03.2013, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Customs, whereby all Chief Commissioners of Central Excise and Customs, Chief Commissioners of Central Excise, Chief Commissioners of Customs, and Chief Commissioners of Local Trading Units (LTUs), were directed to keep their offices open as ?a special measure?, on 29th, 30th and 31st March, 2013. The recipients of the circular were directed to issue trade notices for the information of the trade, as well.

The petitioner approached this court by way of the present writ petition challenging the said circular, inter alia, on the ground that it violated Article 25 of the Constitution of India. On the very first date i.e., 26.03.2013, this court issued certain interim directions, the relevant part of which is extracted hereinbelow:-

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, keeping in view the importance of Good Friday and Easter Sunday which fall on March 29, 2013 and March 31, 2013, and the requirement of the revenue, a balance has to be struck between faith and economy.

While listing the writ petition for hearing on April 02, 2013 before the roster Bench, the respondents are directed that such persons who profess Christian faith and are desirous of either being sanctioned full leave on both days or permission to pay (sic pray) at the Church for a limited duration on either day would be sanctioned leave or permission to leave office to visit the Church at a short duration, keeping in view that those professing Christian faith would be a miniscule number working in such offices/departments of the Central Government where revenue is generated. In case leave/permission is to be denied, the same would be strictly upon the condition of extreme emergency of duty, and reason for the same with reference to the facts would be communicated to the employee concerned. Leave or permission should be approved latest by 10.00 A.M. on March 28, 2013.

Mr. Saqib, who appears for respondent nos. 1 and 3 and Mr. Moonis, who appears for respondent no. 2 submit that on the very date on which this Court entertained the writ petition, a circular was issued in terms of the aforementioned directions. The said circular dated 26.03.2013, as indicated above, is placed on record.

I have perused the circular. The circular is in terms of the directions issued by this court. In my view, a substantial part of the petitioner''s grievance stands redressed as, the respondents circular of 26.3.2013, clarifies that those who profess Christian faith would be sanctioned leave or, would be given permission to leave the office, to visit the Church, for a short duration.

Mr. Saqib submits that in terms of the circular dated 26.3.2013 either option would be available to the employees. In other words, the employees professing Christian faith could apply either for a full day leave or a short leave to visit the Church. If leave were to be denied, it could only be done on the grounds of extreme urgency, for reasons to be recorded and communicated to the concerned employee.

Mr. Saqib and Mr. Moonis say that the respondents would have no difficulty in making the said circular a Standard Operating Procedure, in case, such a situation arises in future. The statement of counsels is taken on record.

Mr. David, at this stage, submits that, there is one other apprehension, which is, whether leave sought for, by an employee, professing Christian faith, would be counted as leave which is otherwise due to an employee in accordance with his/her service conditions.

I have put this aspect to the learned counsel for the respondents.

They state that this leave will not be counted towards leave which is generally available to an employee as per the service conditions applicable to him/her. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the circular dated 15.3.2013 as clarified by circular dated 26.3.2013, and the statement of counsels for respondents, which is recorded hereinabove.