M.C.D. vs Rai Singh And Anr.
2003 Latest Caselaw 675 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. This writ petition challenges the Award dated 20. 4. 1999 whereby respondent-workman has been promoted to X-Ray Technician w. e. f. 11. 3. 1989 instead of 3. 11. 1992 the date on which petitioner MCD itself had promoted respondent. It is not in dispute that in spite of the repeated opportunities granted to the management it failed to file the reply to the claim petition as recorded in paragraph 3 of the Award. It is also not in dispute that as per the relevant recruitment rules upon putting in 8 years service of X-Ray Asst. promotion could be made to the post of X-Ray Technician. It is also not in dispute that respondent had been working with petitioner since 11. 3. 1981 and was thus duly entitled for promotion from 11. 3. 1989. The Tribunal relied upon the following extract of the reply filed by the petitioner before Conciliation Officer:-

'In response to Para 2, it is submitted that Sh. Rai Singh has been working in MCD since 11. 3. 1981 as X-Ray Asstt. As per notified R. R. s. He was entitled for promotion to the post of X-Ray Technician w. e. f. 11. 3. 1989. Since as per notified R. Rs. 08 years regular service in the grade of X-Ray Asstt. Has to be completed, but his name was not available in the final seniority list so, his case could not be considered at that time. Moreover, he has not filed any objection for the inclusion of his name in the final seniority list Sh. Rai Singh represented for promotion to the post of X-Ray Technician, which was received in the office of AD (Health) on 14. 8. 1989. After this date the DPC meeting could not be convened due to non-completion of formalities like final seniority list, CRs and No. RDA report. However, no candidate junior to Sh. Rai Singh has been promoted. Accordingly, his case was considered for promotion of X-Ray Technician. Necessary formalities such as inclusion of his name in seniority list, summoning of CRs and seeking of No. RDA reports etc. were completed and after completion of the requisite formalities he was promoted as X-Ray Technician on 3. 11. 1992. '

2. The main grievance of petitioner is that since no person junior to the respondent was promoted and hence the respondent could not make any grievance. I am of the view that this plea cannot be sustained because respondent's grievance was not of discrimination qua any other employee who had been promoted prior to the respondent but was based upon the plea that the respondent even though entitled for promotion had not been granted promotion. Since as per the rule, the respondent was required to put in regular service of 8 years which he had done and the delay in considering the respondent's case was totally on account of the petitioner, the respondent cannot be denied his entitlement. In fact the dues under the award already stood paid to the respondent.

3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.