AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.N. Terdal, J
MA 2508/2016
As there is a delay of 325 days in filing the Review Application, the Review Applicants have filed the aforestated Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay, on the ground that after receiving certified copy of the impugned order passed in OA 2809/2008, the matter was considered in consultation with the various departments/ Ministries and thereafter a decision was taken for filing the applicants Review Application. As such delay had occurred and that it was neither deliberate nor intentional but it was purely because of the administrative reasons.
The counsel for the respondents (Original Applicants) have seriously contended that condonation of delay application is not supported by day today explanation as such the delay shall not be condoned. But, however, we are of the view that in the Government departments in putting up the file, in consultation and taking decision at various levels time is consumed, as such delay requires to be condoned for hearing the Review Application on merits. In the circumstances, delay is condoned and MA is allowed.
RA 168/2016
Heard Shri S.M.Arif, counsel for the Review applicants ( Original Respondents) and S/Shri Dheeraj Kumar, Sachin Chauhan and Ramesh Shukla, counsel for the respondents (Original Applicants) and perused the pleadings, and all the documents produced by both the parties.
The crucial issue involved in the Original Application No. 2809/2008 is whether the Original Applicants who were employed in Delhi Police are entitled for age relaxation as departmental employees for appointment in Central Government posts. In this regard, the Department of Personnel and Training vide its communication dated 30.12.2004 had informed the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) to the effect that they are not entitled for age relaxation. But, however, on the basis of an Office Memorandum dated Ist/4th September, 2006 of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs to the effect that the personnel of the Delhi Police are treated as Central Government employees and not the employees of the Union Territory of NCT of Delhi, this Tribunal held vide its impugned order dated 28.09.2015, to the effect that the said communication dated 30.12.2004 is bad in law and set aside to the extent it relates to the employees of Delhi Police.
This Review Application is filed seeking review on the ground that the employees of Delhi Police are appointed not by the President of India but are appointed by the Commissioner of Police. Though their payment is made from out of the Consolidated Fund of India and though certain Central Government rules are adopted as per Section 5 of Delhi Police Act, but, however CCS (CCA) Rules are not applicable to them and in that regard rules framed under Delhi Police Act would prevail; that their functional jurisdiction is confine to NCT of Delhi and do not have all India character. The Review Applicants have submitted that the above peculiarities were not brought to the notice of the Tribunal while deciding the original OA and could be notice only while examining the certified copy of the impugned judgment dated 28.09.2015.
The counsel for the Review Applicants further submitted that the Original applicants (respondents) are not at all civilian employees and the question of age relaxation can be extended only to Central Government civilian employees, as per para 5(d) of the original advertisement of the SSC for holding the examination of Combined Graduate Level Exam-2008 which is produced as Annexure-2 with OA and that the communication dated 30.12.2004 issued by the DOP&T to the SSC conveying that the employees of Delhi Police are not eligible for age relaxation as departmental employees in the above said examination should not have been set aside. In view of the above, the contention of the review applicants is sustainable.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Review Application is allowed. The order dated 28.09.2015 passed by this Tribunal in OA 2809/2008 is recalled. Accordingly, the OA is restored to its original position and be listed for hearing on 04.09.2018.