The Delhi High Court yesterday rapped the Centre for its casual approach in a case regarding extensions to 12 top bureaucrats, including cabinet secretary T S R Subramaniam, and asked the Election Commission whether grant of such extensions violated the model code of conduct.
A division bench, comprising Justice Y K Sabharwal and Justice M K Sharma, rejected an application filed by the government seeking modification of its February 9 order directing the government to produce in a sealed cover records pertaining to the extensions granted to top bureaucrats.
The bench directed the government to place in a sealed cover on February 27 the records pertaining to extensions in service granted to Subramaniam, water resources secretary Mata Prasad, CBI director D R Karthikeyan, Intelligence Bureau chief Arun Bhagat, foreign secretary K Raghunath, secretary to Prime Minister T K A Nair and former home secretary K Padmanabhaiah.
The bench asked EC its view on the issue whether extensions can be granted to top officials by a caretaker government while the election process was on and posted the matter for further hearing for March 4.
A petition by Anodula had challenged the one year extension granted to Mata Prasad alleging the governments decision was arbitrary and violative of the model code of conduct.
The high court also sought records pertaining to extensions granted to former CBI director R C Sharma, secretary national human rights commission R V Pillai, additional secretary (culture) R L Sudhir, Tamil Nadu chief
secretary K A Nambiar, Rajasthan chief secretary M L Mehta and director general of Bihar police S K Saxena.
It said on the last date of hearing a standing counsel appeared for government, election commission and Mata Prasad where as it appeared today he did not have the authority to appear on behalf of the commission and Prasad.
Referring to the modification application filed on Saturday, the bench said it is really strange that the Union government is conducting itself in most casual manner which is apparent from not only what is stated above but also from filing of this application at the late stage.
The court rejected government counsel Rakesh Tikus contention that it should peruse the files of extension given to Prasad and not other bureaucrats as only Prasads extension was challenged.
The bench asked why the caretaker government gave only three months extension to Subramaniam and one year to Prasad and questioned the rationale behind it. We find no ground to modify the order already made. Union of India through cabinet secretary is directed to produce the relevant files in terms of the February 9 order on February 27, it said.
