Riyasat Ali vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
2009 Latest Caselaw 5086 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          W.P(C) No.13662/2009

%                       Date of Decision: 08.12.2009
      RIYASAT ALI                                        .... Petitioner
                        Through: Mr. S.P. Gairola, Advocate

                                  Versus

      MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI                   .... Respondent
                Through: NEMO.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

1.    Whether reporters of Local papers may be             Yes
      allowed to see the judgment?

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

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

ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

C.M. No.15356/2009

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) No.13662/2009

1. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 22nd July,

2009 passed in T.A. No.611/2009 "Riyasal Ali v. Municipal

Corporation of Delhi", declining to regularize the petitioner as an

A.C. Operator since 1988, as has been claimed by him.

2. The Tribunal while disposing off the petition has held that

it would be open to the respondents to consult the original records

and in case it is found that the petitioner had been working as A.C.

Operator under valid directions/orders of the competent authority,

payment, if any, in terms of higher salary of the post of A.C.

Operator may be given to the petitioner, if found entitled as per

rules.

3. The petitioner was deputed as Daily Wage Khallasi in

1985 and was given the job of A.C. Operator. The petitioner

claimed that he had been working as A.C. Operator on the basis of

muster roll w.e.f. 28.04.1988 and the reliance was placed also on a

certificate issued by an official under the caption "TO WHOM IT

MAY CONCERN", which has not been relied by the Tribunal to

grant regularization to the petitioner as A.C. Operator since 1988.

4. We find no fault with the findings of the Tribunal. The

petitioner has already become an A.C. Operator since 1995. In the

circumstances, there is no error in the order of the Tribunal, which

will entail interference of this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

DECEMBER 08, 2009                                 VIPIN SANGHI, J.
rsk