1. In this OA the applicants have sought quashing and setting of the orders of their absorption in Delhi Administration/Government of NCT of Delhi (Delhi Government, for short) dated 10.04.1995 and 04.05.1995 and also sought direction to the respondents to repatriate them to respondent No. 6 [i.e. Delhi Development Authority (DDA, for short)], with all consequential benefits. Alternatively, in case they are absorbed in Delhi Government, the applicants should be entitled to count their service rendered with respondent No. 6 for purposes of seniority, promotion, pension, etc., with all consequential benefits.
2. The brief facts of the case are that in pursuance of a decision of the Government of India, the work of Delhi Lotteries was transferred from the DDA to Delhi Government on `as is where is basis', vide Chief Secretary's order dated 31.03.1992. The applicants, who were working in the Delhi Lotteries, were, therefore, transferred to Delhi Government w.e.f. 01.04.1992. They continued to perform the duties and responsibilities assigned to them till further orders and their service conditions were to be decided in due course. Subsequently, options were invited from the employees of Delhi Lotteries and the employees opted for absorption in the Delhi Government subject to condition that their pay and allowances will be protected and the services rendered by them with the DDA will count towards seniority and promotion in the cadre of the Delhi Government.
3. Thereafter, by an order dated 10.04.1995 the applicants were absorbed formally in Delhi Government, while ignoring the condition of counting of their past service in DDA towards seniority. In the meantime, Delhi Government decided to discontinue the Delhi Lotteries w.e.f. 01.01.1995. Delhi Government, therefore, chose to re-deploy the surplus employees in various departments under the provisions of the C.C.S. (Re-deployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990 (Rules of 1990, for short), vide orders dated 04.05.1995. In the process some of the applicants were redeployed in posts lower than the posts held by them in Delhi Lotteries. They were, however, allowed the benefit of protection of their previous pay as personal to them. But, it was made clear to them that they will not have any claim to count their past service towards fixation of seniority in the posts in which they were adjusted.
4. The applicants thereupon filed this OA, which was dismissed by the order of this Tribunal dated 22.02.2000, as follows: 6. In view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, applicants do not have any case. Their past service in the DDA cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority and promotion etc. because they are rendered surplus and have been re-deployed as a measure of sympathy. The respondents have done their best by accommodating the applicants instead of dispensing with their services. The respondents have acted in a fair manner towards the applicants by protecting their pay as also accepting that their past service would be counted for the purpose of pension though not for seniority. In our view, therefore, the applicants' case has no merit. The OA is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the applicants filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi bearing CWP No.5421/2000, but the Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 12.12.2000 dismissed the said Writ Petition and upheld the orders of the Tribunal.
Thereupon, the applicants filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was converted into Civil Appeal No.6586/2003 and was disposed of, vide judgment dated 17.08.2006, with the following observations and directions: The questions which arose for consideration inter alia were: (1) Whether the appellants were permanent employees of the Delhi Development Authority; (2) Whether the DDA continued to treat them as their own employees; (3) Whether without accepting the conditions of their permanent absorption, some of the appellants could be absorbed in the lower grade; and (4) Whether their seniority in the absorbed post would have been affected.
The Tribunal unfortunately did not address itself the said questions and proceeded on the basis that if the applicants had become surplus employees, they would be governed by the CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990. Relying on the decisions of this Court in Union of India v. K. Savitri and Ors. and Union of India v. G.R.K. Sharma , the Tribunal held that the appellants were not entitled to any relief with regard to the past services. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal the appellants filed writ petition before the Delhi High Court which was dismissed summarily.
We have referred to some of the questions which had arisen for consideration before the Tribunal but had not been adverted to although they were relevant. The High Court also failed to resolve the issues.
Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the NCT of Delhi states that the appellants were not permanent employees of DDA. The question as to whether the appellants were permanent employees of DDA, in our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of this case, assumes some significance. One of the questions which arose for consideration before the Tribunal is as to whether the appellants were permanently employed by the DDA and transferred to the Lottery Section or whether they were appointed in the Lottery Section itself. Finding which may be arrived at on the said question would lead to the applicability of the CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990, which were referred to by the Tribunal in its order. Indisputably, another question which arose for consideration before the Tribunal would be the effect of the conditional option given by the appellants pursuant to the notices issued in that behalf by the respondents.
Keeping in view the fact that none of the aforementioned questions have been gone into by the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgments cannot be sustained and the matter should be remitted to the Tribunal for consideration of the matter afresh. We direct accordingly. It would be open to the parties to file additional affidavits before the Tribunal.
We would request the Tribunal to consider the desirability of disposing of the matter as expeditiously as possible. The appeal is disposed of.
6. The applicants have stated that they were initially directly recruited on various posts in various Departments under the DDA, which is a statutory body as having been established under and governed by the Delhi Development Act, 1957. Later on, they were transferred to Delhi Lotteries which was introduced in Delhi, vide order dated 17.04.1969 and was entrusted to DDA to run the same.
7. It has been further stated that the applicants, who as on 01.04.1992 were working on various posts in Delhi Lotteries, were all transferred to the Delhi Government. The said transfer was along with the work and the post and evidently in public interest. However, at that time no option was obtained from the applicants. The service conditions of the applicants continued to be dealt with by the DDA and, in fact, the applicants were treated as on deputation to the Delhi Government. In the meantime, Delhi Government, Finance (Accounts) Department, wrote a letter dated 06.04.1993 to the Joint Director (Lotteries) that a proposal for the absorption of the employees, who came on transfer from DDA to Delhi Government consequent upon transfer to Delhi Lotteries to Delhi Government was under consideration and, therefore, required that written options/consent from the concerned staff for their absorption in Delhi Government may be obtained and sent to the Delhi Government for further necessary action in the matter. It has been submitted that no terms and conditions for option were mentioned in the said letter.
However, the applicants submitted their options for their absorption in Delhi Lotteries subject to condition that the pay and allowances should be protected in such a way that the same should not be to the disadvantage of the applicants and subject to the further condition that the services rendered by them in the DDA must be counted for the purpose of seniority, in Delhi Government, and that other standard terms and conditions, as applicable on permanent absorption, should also be applicable in their case. On one hand, no reply was received or action taken by the Delhi Government on the aforesaid options of the applicants for a period of about two years and, on the other hand, vide order of the Finance Department dated 03.01.1995, Delhi Lotteries was ordered to be closed down w.e.f. 01.01.1995.
8. It has been further submitted that, vide order dated 10.04.1995, sanction of the Lieutenant Governor was also accorded to the absorption of some of the applicants with immediate effect against the posts indicated against their names. The said posts happened to be in various other Departments of the Delhi Government. It was stated that the staff whose names were mentioned in the said order would be entitled to pay protection as was being drawn by them while working in the Lotteries Department and that the services rendered by them shall count towards pension, but the benefit of seniority would be available only from the date of absorption. The said order could not be said to be in consonance with the options given by the applicants whose names were mentioned in the said order inasmuch as the option was given subject to the conditions, inter alia, that the service rendered in the DDA must be counted for the purpose of seniority in Delhi Government. As far as the remaining applicants are concerned, order was issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi (Services II Department) on 04.05.1995, wherein it was mentioned that consequent upon winding up of the Delhi Lotteries and the staff being rendered surplus, the Chief Secretary, Delhi Government was pleased to order the absorption of the staff mentioned in the said order w.e.f. 01.01.1995 and the said absorption was said to be subject to the fulfillment of the Rules of 1990, as the staff whose names were mentioned in the said order were said to be surplus. It has been stated that pursuant to that order some of the applicants, who were said to be rendered surplus and were ordered to be absorbed in other Departments of the Delhi Government, were absorbed in the posts and in the scales of pay lower than the ones which were held and enjoyed by them in Delhi Lotteries.
9. It has been stated that applicants had rendered many years of service before their transfer to Delhi Government and many of them were declared as quasi-permanent/permanent/confirmed. In any case, either they or others who were not so declared, could not be treated as temporary in view of their long service rendered in DDA.10. It has been argued that since the terms and conditions of transfer of the applicants from Delhi Lotteries (Delhi Government) had not been finalized, then evidently there could be no question of absorbing them and treating them so absorbed either by order dated 10.04.1995 or order dated 04.05.1995 and, therefore, they could not also be rendered surplus under the Rules of 1990, which pre-supposes that the person who is redeployed is Central Civil Government servant (other than those employed on ad-hoc, casual, work-charged or contracted basis) and such a person along with the post has been rendered surplus as per Rule 2 (g) of Rules of 1990. The employees of the DDA cannot be treated as Central Civil Government servants, as they could not be re-deployed by the Delhi Government. In fact, even otherwise when the very terms and conditions of their transfer had not been finalized, inasmuch as the conditions of options were not complied with, the question of unilateral absorption of the applicants and declaring them surplus under the said Rules of 1990 or otherwise did not at all arise.
11. It has been further stated that before passing the order of absorption of the applicants either on 10.04.1995 or on 04.05.1995, it was incumbent upon the respondents to finalize their seniority and conditions of their absorption in the light of the options and to obtain the consent from the parent department of the applicants. That having not been done, the absorption orders have been rendered illegal, arbitrary and mala fides.
12. It has also been stated that the lien of the applicants continued to be in the DDA and since the conditions of their options were not complied with and otherwise also the consent of the parent department, i.e. DDA, was not obtained, the very absorption of the applicants has been rendered illegal. Even otherwise the applicants could not be absorbed on the post and in the scale of pay lower than the one they were enjoying in the DDA. The applicants are, therefore, entitled to be repatriated to their parent department, i.e. DDA, or else their services should be counted from the date of their appointment in the DDA for all purpose, like seniority, promotion, pension etc.
13. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5, in their preliminary objections, have stated that if any organization is wound up in the public interest the employees of the organization do not get any legal or constitutional right for re-employment or redeployment in another department or organisation on the same post, which they were holding at the time of their redeployment. In this case, Delhi Lotteries was not even a Government Department but a Government Organization set up for certain commercial purpose. When those commercial activities had to be discontinued in public interest, the employees of the organization had to be retrenched. No legal right had accrued to them for employment in any manner. The staff of Delhi Lotteries exercised their option for absorption in Delhi Government. Thereafter they cannot, as of right, seek reversion to DDA, since their lien in DDA stood extinguished from the date of their permanent absorption in Delhi Government. Thus, DDA has no moral or legal responsibility qua these officials in the matter.
The applicants were not Government employees at any stage under the Rules of 1990. However, Delhi Government decided to re-deploy them to avoid hardship to them and their families and the applicants accepted the posts offered to them. They are estopped from raising the plea at this belated stage that either they should have been given posting at a higher level or reverted to DDA. There is, therefore, no cause of action in favour of the applicants as any redeployment in this Government against promotional posts, as demanded by the applicants, is not justified, keeping in view the frequent promotions they received in their parent department as compared to the long years of service put in by the employees of Delhi Government, who have been waiting for promotion since long. In case the relief sought by the applicants is granted, it will adversely affect the rights of the Government employees in the feeder cadre, who have been waiting for promotion.
Further, the staff of Delhi Lotteries is not the only staff which has been absorbed by this Government, but the staff of other organizations like UBS, DSMDC, DRDA etc. have also been absorbed/redeployed on a similar pattern, as has been done in the case of ex-employees of Delhi Lotteries. Therefore, in case the contention of the applicants to absorb them as UDC in DASS cadre of Delhi Government is accepted, it will have wider implications and such deployment will not only affect the functioning of various Government departments but will also seriously endanger the promotional chances of the existing Government employees for no fault of theirs.
14. It has been averred that the cases of the applicants for redeployment for absorption were considered under the Rules of 1990, which provide under Rule 3.2 (iii) that the posts which are to be filled up by promotion, where eligible candidates having prescribed qualifications are available in feeder cadre, such vacancies need not be reported to the Cell (in relation to surplus staff belonging to Group-A, `B' & `C'). The revised Scheme for Redeployment of personnel staff also provides that the placement of staff ordinarily be arranged only against the vacancies to be filled up by direct recruitment in the Central Civil Services and posts located in the various Ministries/Departments/Offices of Central Government, other than the service/posts to which the requirement is made through a competitive examination conducted by UPSC. As regards the contention of the applicants that their absorption case was not dealt with according to their option is not correct, since the options of the applicants were contrary to the provisions of Rule 6 (4) (a) of the Rules of 1990, which provide that the surplus employees shall have no claim to count their past service, including that rendered in the post of their provisional redeployment, towards fixation of seniority in the post in which they are readjusted. Therefore, the action of the respondents is reasonably just and as per rule. Further, all the applicants were not redeployed in this Government against lower pay scale post. In fact, only 6 out of 20 applicants were redeployed in this Government against lower pay scale posts since recruitment quota was available in this Government to that extent only. However, their pay was duly protected.
The rationale of appointing staff declared surplus against direct recruitment quota only is that their employment/redeployment should not disturb the rights of those who are in the queue for promotion in the Subordinate feeder scale/post. In fact the applicants exercised their options for absorption in Delhi Government. Thereafter, they cannot, as of right, seek reversion to DDA. Further, as far as the posting of the applicants in DDA is concerned, the posts in DDA are filled up as per the requirements of the DDA and as per the acts/rules/bye-laws governing their functioning. The applicants cannot claim any specific posts in such an organization.
15. Respondent No. 6 (DDA) has taken a preliminary objection that the OA is not maintainable against them. DDA is not covered by the scope of Administrative Tribunals Act. This Tribunal, therefore, has no jurisdiction to issue any directions to the DDA under the Administrative Act.
16. The respondent No. 6 has further stated that the entire Lottery Department called `Delhi Lotteries', together with the employees employed therein, vide orders dated 31.03.1992, w.e.f. 01.04.1992. The services of the employees thus stood transferred from DDA to Delhi Government w.e.f. 01.04.1992 itself. The employees accepted the same and continued working with the Delhi Government. Thus the applicants have ceased to have any lien, right or concern with the DDA at all w.e.f. 01.04.1992, after the winding up of the Delhi Lotteries with the Delhi Government. The claim of the applicants is, therefore, not maintainable against the DDA at all. The application qua DDA is, therefore, liable to be dismissed summarily on this account itself.
17. It has been submitted that the services of the applicants were transferred to Delhi Government w.e.f. 01.04.1992 and no option was necessary or required at all. There was no requirement of having any terms or conditions of transfer either. There is no question, therefore, of their finalization. The options which the Delhi Government had sought subsequently, much after the service had already got transferred, was merely a surplusage and, in any event, it is not binding on the DDA.18. It has been further stated that there is no question of repatriation of the applicants to DDA. DDA cannot be treated as the parent department. DDA is merely an ex-employer. The applicants were never sent on deputation. Their services had been transferred from DDA to Delhi Government. However, on humanitarian consideration only DDA took up the matter with the Chief Secretary, Delhi Administration from time to time upon the representations of some of the employees working with Delhi Lotteries.
19. It has been further averred that the applicants have absolutely no lien or right of any such repatriation to the DDA. Once they accepted the transfer of their services to Delhi Government, by implication, by their own conduct of continuing to work with the Delhi Government w.e.f. 01.04.1992 unconditionally and without any protest, estoppes them from challenging it subsequently.
20. In their rejoinders, the applicants, apart from reiterating and elaborating on their averments made by them in the main application, have stated that as per Government of India's order No. (1) below FRSR 14-A, so long as the Government servant remain in Government service, obtaining of consent of the government servant to the termination of the lien is necessary in certain circumstances, where the government servant is to be confirmed in another post under the Government. The orders of permanent absorption should be issued only after the resignation of the Government servant has been accepted by the Government with effect from the date of such acceptance. Since 'no objection' was not obtained from their parent organization before issuing the order of absorption, it is legally defective and not justified.
21. It has also been averred that if timely action in the matter i.e.
before 01.01.1995, had been taken, there was no question of the applicants being declared surplus. If the conditional option given by all of them was not acceptable to the administration, they should have either called for fresh option before the applicants were absorbed under Rules of 1990 or else the applicants should have been reverted back to their parent office. The problem has arisen on account of inordinate delay in dealing with the absorption case of the applicants, both at the level of Finance Department and Services Department of Delhi Government.
22. In the course of oral arguments, Shri V.K. Rao, learned Counsel for the applicants, stated that out of the 21 applicants, who had originally filed the OA, 5 have dropped out. Of the remaining 16, 2 have expired and 2 have retired, but their claims persist. He further stated that earlier the applicants had challenged the impugned orders dated 10.04.1995 (Annexure A-9) and 04.05.1995 (Annexure A-10).
However, on account of certain applicants having dropped out, the challenge to the order dated 10.04.1995 is not being pressed. Learned Counsel further proceeded to argue that the subsisting 16 applicants were employees of the DDA and, in this context, he invited attention to Annexure A-3 (Colly.) relating to the letters of appointment issued by the DDA. To illustrate his point, he provided the following correspondence between the applicants and their appointments:Name of the Applicant Sl. No. in the Memo Post in DDA to whichof Letter of Appointment of Parties Page Number AppointedSmt. Sarita Chugh 8 40-42 L.D.C.Sh. Ajit Singh 10 53-55 L.D.C.Smt. Parveen Kumari 11 36-39 L.D.C./Hindi Typist Hindi TypistSh. Ram Kumar Saini 13 50-52 L.D.C.Smt. Asha Rani Narang 14 46-49 L.D.C.Sh. Dharam Raj Gupta 15 43-45 L.D.C.Sh. Sayed Jamalluddin 16 57-59 L.D.C.These appointments were issued on different dates between 1968-1990.
They were initially posted in different divisions of the DDA and only two of them, i.e. applicant Nos. 12 and 20, were posted in Delhi Lotteries (Annexure A-2).
23. Learned Counsel for the applicants further stated that at the time of shifting the applicants to Delhi Government, in order dated 31.03.1992 (Annexure A-4), it was clearly stated that the service conditions of the applicants 'shall be decided in due course'. In a further letter dated 28.07.1994 (Annexure A-5), again it was clearly stated that the employees of DDA were taken on deputation upon transfer of posts of Lotteries Department to Delhi Government. Further, in the light of letter of Finance (Account) Department of Government of Delhi dated 06.04.2003 addressed to Joint Director (Lotteries) of the same Government, it was requested that written options/consent of the concerned staff for their permanent absorption in Delhi Administration may be obtained (Annexure A-6). Pursuant thereto, all the applicants gave their consent for permanent absorption in an identical manner, subject to the conditions that their pay and allowances are protected and the services rendered by them in the cadre must be accounted for the purpose of seniority in the cadre of Delhi Administration (Annexure R-III). However, without taking action on the request of the applicants, the impugned order dated 04.05.1995 was issued on the assumption that they were already part of the Delhi Government and had been rendered surplus consequent upon winding up of Delhi Lotteries.
24. Learned Counsel for the applicants argued that absorption, under consideration, was not in terms of any statutory rules but purely a matter of contract. Delhi Government should have, therefore, either accepted their options on the basis of the conditions mentioned in their option letters or should have repatriated them back to the DDA.Without, therefore, having decided the issue of absorption, the order declaring them surplus was without authority. Only the DDA, their employer, could have declared them surplus and not the Delhi Government. What is worse, after declaring them surplus and applying Rules of 1990, some of the applicants were demoted, such that Section Officers were made Head Clerks and UDCs were made LDCs. Their previous service also stood forfeited for purposes of seniority and promotion.
25. Learned Counsel for the applicants also invited attention to the Tribunal's order in the case of Rakesh Saxena and Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. OA No. 2128/2002 decided on 13.05.2003, wherein in a similar situation certain employees of DDA were transferred to Delhi Government along with transfer of function of managing the Inter-State Bus Terminals in Delhi. They were ordered to be repatriated back to the DDA, while allowing the O.A.26. Shri Vijay Pandita, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 5, reiterated the averments made in the counter filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
27. Shri M.K. Singh, learned Counsel for respondent No. 6 (DDA) stated that, in the first place, no relief can be granted to the applicants qua DDA, insofar as the Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction over the DDA. He further stated that since upon transfer of the Lotteries Division from DDA to Delhi Government all the applicants were transferred on `as is where is basis', DDA has no say in the matter.
28. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
29. In terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 17.08.2006 (supra), we are required to address the following issues while considering the matter afresh: Whether without accepting the conditions of their permanent absorption, some of the applicants could be absorbed in the lower grade? Whether their seniority in the absorbed posts would have been affected? (i) From a perusal of the material placed before us as well as in the light of the averments made by the learned Counsels, we find that the applicants were employees of the DDA and, except for applicants at serial Nos. 12 & 20, were not necessarily recruited for the Lotteries Section of the DDA. The letters of appointment do state that appointments made were purely temporary in nature and could be terminated at any time without notice. However, the applicants, in their pleadings, have stated that many of them were declared quasi-permanent/permanent/confirmed and that others, who were not so declared, could not be treated temporary in view of their long service rendered in the DDA (Ground No. G of the OA).
This has not been specifically denied by the respondents. As a matter of fact, respondent No. 6 has stated that it is a matter of record.
(ii) There is no definite record to establish that the DDA continued to keep the applicants as their own employees. As a matter of fact, learned Counsel for respondent No. 6 (DDA) clearly stated that after the applicants were transferred along with the posts from the Lotteries Section to Delhi Government on `as is where is basis', the DDA washed their hands of them. On the other hand, we find that in one of the letters from the Secretary (Finance) of the Government of NCT of Delhi to the Vice Chairman, DDA, it has been stated that in the context of the transfer of the posts of Lotteries Department to Delhi Government, 'employees of DDA (were) taken on deputation'. It further goes on to state that a panel of 7-8 names of LDCs may be sent, who could be taken on deputation in place of LDCs repatriated.
To this, there is also a reply from the DDA stating as follows:No. F.7(78)93/PB.I/Pt12341 I am to refer to your D.O. letter No. F.15(37)/90/3054 dated 28.7.94 and addressed to the Vice-Chairman, DDA, regarding repatriation of two L.D.Cs namely Shri Ram Kumar Saini and Shri Ram Singh, to the Delhi Development Authority. A list of 6 L.D.Cs who are willing to go on deputation to the Lotteries Department in place these repatriated L.D.Cs, is attached as desired.
Thus, even though in their counter reply respondent No. 6 (DDA) has stated that the applicants were never sent on deputation, it appears to be an afterthought. As a matter of fact, Shri R.K. Saini was repatriated, vide order of Delhi Administration dated 02.12.1993 (Pg. 87).
(iii) There is no dispute that the terms and conditions, subject to which the applicants had given their consent for permanent absorption in Delhi Government, were not considered and some of the applicants were absorbed in lower grades. As a matter of fact, a plain reading of the averments made by respondent Nos. 1 to 5, detailing the sequence of events makes the position clear, as follows: Subsequently, options were called from the employees of Delhi lotteries and the employees opted for absorption in this govt.
Subject to the conditions that their pay and allowances are protected and the service rendered by them in DDA is counted towards seniority in the cadre in the this Govt.
Lateron, Delhi Lotteries was discontinued w.e.f. 01/01/95. This Govt. chose to redeploy the surplus employees of Delhi lotteries in various deptts. of this Govt. under the provisions of CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990 vide order dt. 04-05-95 (A-R-II) only to avoid hardship to the employees From the sequence of events narrated above, it is clear that after the options of the applicants were invited, the turn of events took a different course due to the decision taken to wind up the Delhi Lotteries w.e.f. 01.01.1995. Between `X' and `Y' above their falls a shadow. The consideration of the conditional options of the applicants was practically put under the carpet in the context of the decision to wind up Delhi Lotteries.
(iv) In view of what has been stated above in relation to non-acceptance of the conditions stipulated by the applicants in their letters of consent, their seniority came to be affected on account of not counting of their previous service rendered in the DDA. Actually in the impugned order dated 04.05.1995, declaring the applicants as surplus and also ordering their absorption in terms of Rules of 1990, it was clearly stated that surplus employees are not entitled to the benefit of past service rendered in the previous organization for the purpose of their seniority in the new organization. As such, employees are to be treated as fresh entrants in the matter of their seniority/promotion etc.
31. In view of our findings mentioned above, on the issues identified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the applicants, at the time of their transfer to Delhi Government, were the employees of the DDA and some of them had been declared quasi-permanent/permanent and were even confirmed. As per the initial correspondence in the matter brought on record, both the DDA and the Delhi Government considered them to be on deputation from DDA to Delhi Government. The applicants had given their consent for permanent absorption based on certain conditions, which were not considered by the Delhi Government and, even without formally absorbing them based on the options given by the applicants, they were declared surplus first. This is a classic example of putting the cart before the horse. Given the sequence of events outlined above, it is quite obvious that the past services of the applicants in the DDA were not counted at the time of their absorption in Delhi Government. We are, however, in agreement with respondent No.6 that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction in respect of DDA.32. Taking the totality of facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, we come to the conclusion that the act of the Delhi Government in declaring the applicants as surplus and thereafter absorbing them as surplus staff was without authority. Similarly, absorbing them without taking note of the conditional consent given by them for absorption was also irregular.
33. In the result, the OA is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.05.1995 is quashed and set aside with a direction to respondent Nos.
1 to 5 to consider the consent letters of the subsisting applicants as per law and pass a speaking and reasoned order thereon, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. There will be no order as to costs.