Delhi High Court
Pradeep Kumar vs Govt. Of Nct Delhi & Ors. on 19 February, 2010
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No. 1042/2010 & CM No. 2173/2010
% Date of Decision: 19.02.2010
Pradeep Kumar .... Petitioner
Through Dr. Praveen Kumar Sharma, Advocate
Versus
Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors. .... Respondent
Through Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
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 petitioner who is a Tabla Player is aggrieved by the order
dated 24th August, 2009 passed in OA No. 2084/2008 titled as Pradip
Kumar Vs. Govt. of NCT and Ors., by the Central Administrative
Tribunal whereby his original application was disposed of with a
direction to the respondent that in the event of a post of music teacher
is notified and/or is going to be filled up by the respondents, the claim
of the petitioner be considered with relaxation of age, if he conforms to
other eligibility criteria in accordance with Rules.
The petitioner was a part time Tabla player and he has sought
regularization as Tabla Player/Attendant/Helper to music teacher or
any other post in the same cadre from the date of his initial
appointment from 1st October, 1980. Earlier also, the petitioner had
filed an original application before Central Administrative Tribunal
being OA No. 361/2002 for his regularization as Tabla Player, which
was dismissed and a review petition filed by the petitioner was also
dismissed. A writ petition being CWP No. 2506/2003 was also filed
however, regularization to the post of table player was not granted to
the petitioner.
The petitioner thereafter preferred another original application
being OA 194/2008 referring to a circular of the respondent dated 25th
November, 2002. The request of the petitioner for regularization was
declined, however, he was given liberty in view of the circular dated 25th
November, 2002 consequent to which the petitioner filed another OA
No. 2084/2008, which has been disposed of by the Tribunal by order
dated 24th August, 2009 which is challenged by the petitioner in the
present writ petition.
The petitioner had contended that since the post of Tabla Player
was more than three years old, on part time basis therefore, the
respondent should have sanctioned permanent post of Tabla Player,
especially taking into consideration that the petitioner had been
working for 28 years and therefore, he should have been regularized.
The respondents had contested the petition on the ground that
the plea of regularization of the petitioner was barred by res judicata.
Regarding the circular dated 25th November, 2002, it was contended
that it was with regard to sanction of Tabla Player part time posts for
discontinuance of temporary posts till 31st May, 2003 as there was no
post of Tabla Player in Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Therefore, it was
contended that the petitioner could not be regularized. Reliance was
also placed on Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi & Ors., 2006
(6) SCC 1 and Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand, 2009 (1) SCC (L & S)
943 to contend that no direction for regularization in respect of part
time employees can be issued.
The Tribunal after considering the pleas and contentions have
held that the plea of the petitioner for regularization is barred by res
judicata. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show as to
how the plea of the petitioner for regularization is not barred by res
judicata. The petitioner is also not entitled for regularization in view of
the circular dated 25th November, 2002 as the same relates to sanction
of Tabla Player part time post.
Consequently, the directions given by the Tribunal that in case a
post of music teacher is notified or is going to be filled up by the
respondents, the claim of the petitioner be considered with relaxation of
age, if he conforms to other eligibility criteria in accordance with Rules
cannot be faulted. The petitioner is not entitled for regularization and
there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the Tribunal
impugned in the present writ petition. The writ petition is without any
merit and it is therefore dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
FEBRUARY 19, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'rs'
