AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of continuing the interim relief.
On 25.10.2021, while issuing notice to the respondents and directing them to file the counter affidavit within four weeks, the following interim orders were passed by us :
“Even though Shri Harish V. Shankar, learned counsel for the respondents, made an oral statement to say that looking to the facts and circumstances of the applicant‟s case, he cannot compare his case with other persons, who have been granted provisional extension on account of pendency of their statutory complaints, we find that the objections raised by Shri Harish V. Shankar should be brought on record in the form of an affidavit, which be filed within four weeks from today.
Prima facie, finding that provisional extension being granted to similarly placed employees in whose cases statutory complaints were pending, we direct that till the next date of listing, discharge of the applicant shall be kept in abeyance and he shall continue to get provisional extension, as has been granted to other similarly situated employees by virtue of letter dated 19.01.2021 as Annexure A-8 to the additional affidavit brought on record.
Thereafter, the matter was listed on various dates and till date, counter affidavit has not been filed.
We grant four weeks’ further time to the respondents to file the counter affidavit. However, today an order dated 22.03.2022 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Department of Defence has been produced before us which reads as under :
“The Central Government after considering the Statutory Complaint dated 16.10.2021 submitted by Maj Yadvender Singh, AMC (MS-17324F), against non grant of extension of service, hereby rejects the same being devoid of merit. The case has been correctly processed as per the extant policy applied uniformly to all similarly placed officers and no injustice has been done to the officer.”
And it is pointed out by Shri Harish V. Shankar that as the statutory complaint of the applicant has been decided now, the interim protection granted to the applicant should be vacated.
Learned counsel for the applicant opposed the aforesaid on the ground that the statutory complaint has been decided in an arbitrary manner without examining the statutory compliant in detail and without giving any reasons for rejecting the submissions made by the applicant in the statutory complaint.
We find that the statutory complaint has been decided by a non-speaking order, which prima facie shows non-application of mind and non-disclosure of the reasons for rejecting the statutory complaint.
Keeping in view the aforesaid, we see no reason to modify or vacate the interim protection granted and the same shall continue to remain in operation till the counter affidavit is filed. Let the counter affidavit be filed within four weeks. Respondents are granted liberty to produce the file by which the statutory complaint was decided to demonstrate that the statutory complaint was decided by a speaking order after application of mind.
List the matter on 11th May, 2022.
Copy of this order be given “Dasti”.