Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Mahender Singh
2009 Latest Caselaw 4112 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       W.P.(C.) No. 8088/2009

%                  Date of Decision: 12th October, 2009


#     MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI                    ..... PETITIONER

!                  Through:   Mr. Nitin Kumar, Advocate.

                                   VERSUS

$     MAHENDER SINGH                                    ....RESPONDENT

^                  Through:   NEMO.


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)

Vide impugned award dated 04.08.2006 in a batch of

matters, the respondent workmen working as Mason in MCD along with

several others has been held entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 (as

revised from time to time) from the date of their termination as

Mason/Carpenter. However, the financial benefit has been ordered to be

given to them from 01.05.2003 after fixing their pay notionally in the pay

scale of Rs. 950-1500 as revised from time to time since they were

promoted as Mason/Carpenter.

2. There are a number of workmen in whose favour the impugned

award has been given by the Industrial Adjudicator. This writ petition has

been filed by the management of the MCD only against one workman,

namely respondent Mahender Singh herein.

3. A similar challenge against the same award came up before this

Court earlier in a writ petition being W.P.(C.) No. 11661/2009 which was

dismissed vide order dated 16.09.2009. It was noted by this Court in the

said order that the impugned award referred to two cases of Mr.

Mukhram and Mr. Bhairo Singh, who are identically situated and have

been granted the benefit of pay scale of Rs. 260-400 (revised from time

to time). The Tribunal below has referred to those instances even in the

impugned order and the same has not been assailed by the petitioner in

the present writ petition. Therefore, it goes unchallenged that the

petitioner has already granted the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 (revised from

time to time) to at least two junior persons to the respondent namely to

Mr. Mukhram and Mr. Bhairo Singh. There is no reason why the petitioner

should discriminate with the respondent in the matter of granting the

benefit of pay scale of Rs. 260-400 (revised from time to time) to him

also with effect from the date mentioned in the impugned award.

4. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition

which fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.

OCTOBER 12, 2009                                      S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'BSR'