Delhi High Court
Sh.Om Prakash vs Mcd And Ors on 12 January, 2010
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C.) No.144/2010
% Date of Decision: 12.01.2010
Sh.Om Prakash .... Petitioner
Through Mr.Lalta Prasad, Advocate.
Versus
MCD and Ors .... Respondents
Through Ms.Suparna Srivastava, Standing
Counsel for the MCD.
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 has challenged the dismissal of his petition before
the Central Administrative Tribunal claiming regularization after
working as casual labour.
The petitioner had contended that he was engaged on muster roll
in May, 1988 and he worked with the respondents till April, 1998.
According to him he was regularized and after regularization in 1998,
he was not well and, therefore, he went to his village where he was
diagnosed having Tuberculosis. It was alleged by him that he was under
treatment of doctor from 1st May, 1998 to 19th November, 1999 and he
was declared fit on 12th November, 1999 whereafter he reported for
work and gave his representation but neither his representation had
been decided nor he was allowed to work.
The petitioners contention is that he became fit for work in
November, 1999, however, he was not allowed to join work, therefore he
filed the writ petition in 2008 which had been transferred to the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench which was dismissed by the
Tribunal in T.A No.198/2009 by order dated 27th May, 2009 titled
Sh.Om Prakash v. Commissioner, MCD and Ors.
The Tribunal has disbelieved the medical certificate produced by
the petitioner on the ground that though the petitioner alleged that he
had tuberculosis, however, he had produced the medical certificate
issued by an alleged child specialist. The medical certificate relied on by
the petitioner also did not bear any stamp of the doctor, who had
certified it nor it bore any registration number of the doctor and,
therefore, no reliance could be placed on the same. The Tribunal also
relied on State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, JT 1993 (3) SC 418 to infer
that the petitioner was a casual labour in 1999 and he has no right to
be regularized. The Tribunal has also noted that the petitioner has
failed to substantiate his plea that as a casual labour he was
regularized in 1998. The petitioner failed to give any sufficient reason
for not approaching the Court after 1999 when the petitioner became fit
till 2008.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to substantiate
the plea that the petitioner had been regularized from casual worker to
the regular worker in 1998. The learned counsel is also unable to
explain the delay in approaching the Tribunal for alleged regularization
in 1998 till 2008.
In the circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere with the
order of the Tribunal dated 27th May, 2009 declining the plea of the
petitioner for regularization on account of having worked as causal
labour with respondent in 1999. There is no illegality or such
irregularity which will require any correction 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.
JANUARY 12, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'k'
