Rameshwar Dayal & Others vs Delhi Transport Corporation
2009 Latest Caselaw 5157 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        W.P. (C.) No.13552/2009

%                      Date of Decision: 11.12.2009

Rameshwar Dayal & Others                            .... Petitioners
                   Through Mr.Anil Mittal, Advocate

                                Versus

Delhi Transport Corporation                         .... Respondent
                     Through Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate.

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 in            NO
      the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

The petitioners have impugned the order dated 23rd November,

2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,

New Delhi in T.A. No. 613 of 2009 declining the prayers of the

petitioners to designate them as Console Operators from the date they

were transferred in the Computer Section, Data Centre of the

respondent and also declining the prayer of the petitioners to pay them

pay and allowances as applicable to the post of Console Operator and

not to send them to work as Conductors.

The petitioners were recruited as Conductors in the pay scale of

Rs.3,050-4,590/- (pre revised), however, according to the petitioners

they have been rendering services as Console/Terminal operators since

1998. The petitioners claim that they are entitled to pay scale of

Rs.5,500-9,000/- which is payable to Console/Terminal Operator.

The petitioners relied on the resolution of the Board of Directors

of the respondent of 1998 approving the working of Conductors as

Console/Terminal Operators.

The petitions were opposed by Delhi Transport

Corporation/respondent contending, inter alia, that Conductors were

surplus and, therefore, instead of considering alternative actions, the

petitioners and other Conductors were assigned the duty of

Console/Terminal Operators.

Pursuant to interim directions dated 24th May, 2006 by the High

Court, it was also revealed that the petitioners were not given the work

of computer operators being surplus conductors but they had been

doing the job of preparation of bills. It was contended that they were not

involved in interpretation of any data or feeding the same on the

computers.

The proposal of the respondent to have a separate cadre for

absorption was not accepted by Government of NCT of Delhi for the IT

cadre. The Government of NCT of Delhi was rather of the view that it

should be a specialized cadre which should be manned by the persons

who should be selected made through an open competitive examination.

For the employees of DTC in order to be enrolled in the IT cadre, one-

time age relaxation was contemplated and was approved by resolution

No.133 of 2007.

Later on the policy to have a separate IT cadre, on account of the

recession, was shelved, which was challenged by the petitioner. The

Tribunal after considering the reasons given by the respondent for

shelving the proposal to have a separate IT cadre has held that matters

of policy and creation of posts etc. are exclusively in the administrative

domain of the respondent and interference by the Tribunal is neither

warranted nor desirable. The Tribunal noted that it can interfere only if

the decision is contrary to statutory provisions or is patently arbitrary

or vitiated by malafides. Relying on Secretary, State of Karnataka and

others v. Uma Devi and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, it was also held that

merely because the petitioners, who are the surplus Conductors, are

also doing some of the work of Console/Terminal Operators, it will not

entitle them to be absorbed in the regular cadre of Console/Terminal

Operators. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the respondent

that assigning Conductors, whose overall pay is about Rs.25,000/- per

month, to continue to do data entry work, is not commercially viable, as

the said work can be got done by outsourcing it for about at Rs.8,000/-

per month.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has also not been able to

make out that the petitioners, who are surplus Conductors, are

performing the full duties of the Console/Terminal Operators. The

documents relied on by the petitioners only indicates the deployment of

some surplus Conductors and Drivers in the pilot project of `pay roll

project' in Computer Section which fact cannot be refuted by the

petitioners in the facts and circumstances.

The Tribunal has noted that grant of pay scale etc. should not be

interfered with, as it is purely Executive function which should be left to

the Executive or to an expert body relying on S.C. Chandra and others

v. State of Jharkhand and others, (2007) 8 SCC 279.

The petitioners have also failed to make out a case that after

working for a number of years as Console/Terminal Operators, they get

a vested right to work only in that capacity or that they cannot be asked

to work as Conductors. The petitioners are not entitled for absorption

on the regular basis as Console/Terminal Operators, in the facts and

circumstances.

Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioners have

failed to make out the case of any illegality or such irregularity in the

order of the Tribunal dated 23rd November, 2009 which shall entail

interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article

226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition, in the facts and circumstances, is without any

merit and it is, therefore, dismissed.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

December 11, 2009                                     VIPIN SANGHI, J.
'Dev'