Delhi High Court
N.P. Sharma vs Delhi Development Authority on 6 November, 1998
Equivalent citations: 76 (1998) DLT 814, 1999 (48) DRJ 239
Author: K Ramamoorthy
Bench: K Ramamoorthy
JUDGMENT
K. Ramamoorthy, J.
1. The writ petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court graciously be pleased to accept the writ petition and grant the following reliefs to the petitioner:-
I. A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ praying for direction to the respondent DDA to appoint/promote the petitioner as LDC with effect from the date on which respondent declared the results of the type test, as qualified. .
II. A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ praying for direction to the respondent DDA to consider the case of the petitioner and to appoint/promote the petitioner as LDC with effect from 17.2.1989, i.e. the date on which respondent appointed nine Muster Roll candidates as LDCs without written test and type test or to direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner as LDC on any other date which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the aforesaid circumstances of the case with all consequential benefits.
III. A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondent, DDA to absorb and regularise the services of the petitioner as LDC with effect from the date on which he was posted as LDC in diverted capacity.
IV. Or in the alternative, a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ praying for directing the respondent, MCD to appoint/promote the petitioner as LDC with effect from the date on which respondents declared the results of the type test and declared qualified or any other date which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the aforesaid circumstances of the case, with all consequential benefits.
2. On the 26th of July, 1995, while disposing of the CM.4503/95, this Court passed the following order:-
"CW.2709/95 & CM.4503/95
Learned counsel for the petitioner invites our attention to the order dated 7th April, 1995 passed in CWP.881/95.
Rule.
Mr.Apoorve Lal, Advocate present in the Court and who is appearing for the DDA in CW.881/95 takes notice. Counter and reply within six weeks under copies to the petitioner's counsel. Rejoinder, if any, within three weeks thereafter.
Issue notice to the MCD. In the meantime one vacancy of LDC shall be kept vacant to accommodate the petitioner in the event of his success. However, the respondents are at liberty to conduct the examination."
3. Civil Writ Petition No.881/95 was allowed by this Court on the 20th of May, 1998. The Division Bench has confirmed the judgment of this Court dated 20.5.1998.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.K.Venkatraman, submitted that the petitioner's case is covered by the judgment of this Court passed in CW.881/95. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to the allowed.
5. The learned counsel for the DDA, Mr.Apurab Lal, submitted that the petitioner had been transferred from DDA to MCD and, therefore, he cannot claim any rights in the DDA. Mr.K.Venkatraman, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that no doubt the petitioner had been transferred to the MCD but the petitioner along with other filed the CW.347/95 in which the Division Bench had vide order dated 4.4.1995 directed the petitioners to work with the MCD and that order was passed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners in that case. The order dated 4.4.1995 reads as under:-
"CW.347/95 & CMs.595 & 927/95
Counsel for the respondent seeks time to file sub-rejoinder to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner. Let it be filed within two weeks. Adjourned to July 25, 1995.
Without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners, they should work with the MCD forthwith till further orders and they should be paid their salary by the MCD. In case, the petitioners having working as Beldar, they should be given the work of Beldar."
6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the order of the DB, the petitioner was sent to the MCD without prejudice to his position in the DDA.
7. In view of this, the fact that the petitioner is working in MCD would not affect the rights of the petitioner to seek reliefs in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
8. The DDA shall issue appointment order appointing the petitioner as LDC and such an order will be issued by the DDA on or before the 31st of December, 1998.
9. There shall be no order as to costs.
