MANOJ KUMAR AND OTHERS  Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

W.P. (C) 1060/2021 Page 1 of 3
$~Suppl. -27

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C) 1060/2021, CM APPLs.2965 -66/2021
MANOJ KUMAR AND OTHERS …..Petitioners
Through: Mr.Nilansh Gaur, Advocate.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS …..Respondents
Throug h: Mr.Vivek Goyal, CGSC for UOI.

% Date of Decision: 28th January, 2021

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
J U D G M E N T

MANMOHAN , J (Oral)
1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing. :
2. Present writ petition has been filed challengi ng the orders dated 16th
December, 2019 and 24-25th October, 2019 whereby the petitioners have
been found to be ineligible and denied relaxation in mandatory service for
permanent absorption as accountant in Central Civil Accounts Service
[CCAS] cadre. Petitioners also pray for a direction to MHA to accord
relaxation in mandatory service of eighteen years as per Clause 21 of OM
dated 24th
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners were November, 2016 and thereafter to Director General, SSB to issue
NOC and to the CGA to considers petitioners’ claim for grant of permanent absorption as accountant in CCAS.
2021:DHC:324-DB W.P. (C) 1060/2021 Page 2 of 3
constables/GD in SSB and were sent on deputation on 09th May, 20 14 and
09th
4. He states that the Ministry of Finance, Controller General of
Accounts, as a one -time measure, has promulgated a proposal of permanent
absorption of deputed personnel on 14 June, 2014 to Principal Accounts Office of MHA and now the y are
Head Constables working as accountants. He points out that in order to be
permanently absorbed in the said post, the petitioners need 18 years of
mandatory service, however the same can be relaxed by the Central Government.
th
5. He also states that the petitioners’ case for absorption has been
espoused by the Director General, SSB and another officer of the SSB has
been granted relaxation vide letter dated 30 August, 2019 . He further states that
the petitioners had sought relaxation in mandatory service and the sa me was
rejected vide the impugned order without any reasons.
th
6. Issue notice. Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC accepts notice on behalf of the
respondents. January, 2019.
7. A perusal of the paper book reveals that the petitioners have filed a
second representation dated 12th
8. Keeping in view the said fact, the present writ petition and pending
applications are disposed of with a direction to respondent no.1 to decide the
petitioners’ second representation dated 12 February, 2020, annexed at page 63 of the
paper book, which has not been disposed of till date.
th
February, 2020 within six
weeks. In the event, the petitioners are aggrieved by the said order, they
shall be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

2021:DHC:324-DB W.P. (C) 1060/2021 Page 3 of 3
9. This Court clarifies that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits
of the controversy. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left
open.
10. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be
also forwarded to the learned counsel through e -mail.

MANMOHAN, J

ASHA MENON, J
JANUARY 28, 2021
KA
2021:DHC:324-DB