New Delhi Municipal Council vs Ndmc Medical And Health Employees ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 3192 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                      W.P.(C) No. 6590/2001

%              Date of Decision: 17 August, 2009

# NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL                ..... PETITIONER
!            Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Advocate.

                              VERSUS

$ UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS                .....RESPONDENTS

^ Through: Ms. Manisha Badoni and Ms. Meena Bhatia, Advocates.

                               AND

+                      W.P.(C) No. 6980/2003

# NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL                ..... PETITIONER
!            Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Advocate.

                              VERSUS

$ SMT. SURAKSHA & OTHERS                      .....RESPONDENTS
^             Through: Mr. Inder Jit Singh, Advocate.
                            AND

+                      W.P.(C) No. 10841/2004

# NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL                ..... PETITIONER
!            Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Advocate.

                              VERSUS

$ SHRI BAIJU DAS AND OTHERS                 .....RESPONDENTS
^              Through: Mr. K. Venkatraman, Advocate.

                               AND

+                      W.P.(C) No. 11131/2004

# NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL                ..... PETITIONER
!            Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Advocate.

                              VERSUS

$ WORKMEN, NEW DELHI NAGAR PALIKA KARAMCHARI UNION .....RESPONDENTS ^ Through: Nemo.

                                AND

+                      W.P.(C) No. 11847/2004

# NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL                ..... PETITIONER
!            Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Advocate.

                              VERSUS

$ N.D.M.C. WATER SUPPLY WORKER UNION AND ANOTHER .....RESPONDENTS ^ Through: Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocate.

                               AND

+                      W.P.(C) No. 11925/2004

# NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL                ..... PETITIONER
!            Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Advocate.

                              VERSUS

$ NDMC MEDICAL & HEALTH EMPLOYEES UNION AND ANOTHER .....RESPONDENTS ^ Through: Nemo.

                               AND

+                      W.P.(C) No. 2249/2005

#WORKMEN OF THE HORTICULTURE WING OF THE NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ..... PETITIONERS ! Through: Mr. Pramod Kumar Sharma, Advocate.

VERSUS

$ NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL .....RESPONDENT ^ Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Advocate.

                               AND

+                      W.P.(C) No. 4025-28/2005

# SMT. USHA RANI AND OTHERS               ..... PETITIONERS
!             Through: Mr. Pramod Kumar Sharma, Advocate.

                              VERSUS

$ NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL               .....RESPONDENT
^            Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Advocate.


                                   AND

+                      W.P.(C) No. 5140/2005

# NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL                ..... PETITIONER
!            Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Advocate.

                                VERSUS

$ SMT. YASHODA AND OTHERS                    .....RESPONDENTS
^            Through: Mr. Inder Jit Singh, Advocate.

                                  AND

+                      W.P.(C) No. 4121/2007

# NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL                ..... PETITIONER
!            Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Advocate.

                                VERSUS

$ SHRI VIJAY ANAND AND OTHERS                  .....RESPONDENTS
^              Through: Mr. Inder Jit Singh, Advocate.

CORAM:

Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? NO

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?NO

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?NO

S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) All these writ petitions are proposed to be disposed of by this

common order as the counsel for both the parties have agreed for

passing of a consent order.

2. The respondents/workmen are employees working with the

petitioner on various posts. Some of them have retired and some of

them are still in service of the petitioner. The dispute between the

parties is about the implementation of the recommendations of the Shiv

Shankar Committee Report. The petitioner is stated to has appointed a

committee to look into the implementation aspect of the

recommendations of the Shiv Shankar Committee and this Committee

was constituted by the petitioner pursuant to orders and directions of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court. Counsel for both the parties agree that the

committee, so constituted by the petitioner, is looking into the

implementation aspect of the recommendations of the Shiv Shankar

Committee applicable to the employees of the petitioner. It is submitted

that the workmen, including the respondents, are participating in the

proceedings taken up by the Committee constituted by the petitioner for

implementation of the Shiv Shankar Committee recommendations. The

workmen, including the respondents, will be given benefits of the Shiv

Shankar Committee recommendations as it may be suggested by the

Committee constituted by the petitioner for this purpose. In case any of

the workmen/respondents may not be satisfied with the implementation

aspect, then they may raise a separate dispute with regard thereto in

appropriate proceedings before the Competent Authority as per law.

3. At this stage, Ms. Jyoti Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the petitioner (NDMC), on instructions, submits that in view of the

provisions contained in Section 34 of N.D.M.C. Act, 1994, the Committee

constituted by the petitioner to look into the implementation aspect of

the recommendations of the Shiv Shankar Committee is also considering

extending the benefit of Sixth Pay Commission to its employees as the

said benefit has already been made applicable to Government

employees.

4. The Committee constituted by the petitioner for considering the

implementation of recommendations of the Shiv Shankar Committee is

directed to conclude the proceedings pending before it as expeditiously

as possible, preferably within four months from today.

5. Counsel appearing on both sides jointly submit that all these writ

petitions may be disposed of in terms of the aforementioned order.

Accordingly, all these writ petitions stand disposed of in terms referred

hereinabove. All miscellaneous applications on record, also stands

disposed of as having become infructuous.

A copy of this order be kept in the files of all the writ petitions

which have been disposed of by this common order.

AUGUST 17, 2009                                     S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'bsr'