N G Lakshminarayan & ORS v. Union Of India & ANR

$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9530/2017 N G LAKSHMINARAYAN & ORS ..... Petitioners Through:

Mr.Zakir Hussain, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents Through:

Mr.Vivekanand Mishra, Advocate with Mr.Vipul Agrawal, Advocate for R-1

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

O R D E R

% 30.10.2017 1.

The petitioners, who are 44 in number, are the employees of respondent No.2, who, vide various representations, had sought shifting from 'Central Dearness Allowance' pattern to 'Industrial Dearness Allowance' pattern and had also sought that the seniority list be formulated, so that a proper seniority list indicating roster points of SC & ST candidates is framed. Petitioners also claim that legal notice dated 4.7.2017 (Annexure P-10) was responded to, on 21.7.2017 vide Annexure P-11. What has been said in the Reply (Annexure P-11) is that the issue of allowance and prerequisites is under active consideration of Board of Directors subject to Department of Public Enterprise's guidelines and approval of Government, if required, and the stand taken by respondent-National Research Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'NRDC') is that the W.P.(C) 9530/2017

conduct of petitioners in serving legal notice tarnishes the image of respondent-corporation and is in violation of the conduct rules which shall be viewed seriously by the management.

2.

To say the least, the issues raised in the various Representations Annexure P-6 to Annexure P-9 colly made during the period from January, 2010 till October, 2016 have not been responded to or addressed by respondent-NRDC and in such a situation, petitioners were compelled to serve a legal notice, to which no exception ought to have been taken by respondent-NRDC.

3.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioners are permitted to make a comprehensive representation to respondent-NRDC within a period of 2 weeks and upon receipt of the said representation, respondent-NRDC shall take a decision thereon within a period of 12 weeks thereafter by passing a speaking order.

4.

The fate of the representation being made known to petitioners' counsel within a week thereof, so that petitioners may avail of the remedy as available in law, if need be. Since respondent-NRDC has not appeared despite service of advance notice therefore, copy of this order be sent to respondent-NRDC forthwith to ensure its compliance. 5.

With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of. 6.

Dasti to both parties.

CM No.38748/2017 Disposed of as infructuous.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE OCTOBER 30, 2017 mamta W.P.(C) 9530/2017