Sh.Adarsh Kumar vs M.C.D & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 219 Del

*                IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                                W.P. (C.) No.231/2010

%                            Date of Decision: 15.01.2010

Sh.Adarsh Kumar                                             .... Petitioner
                             Through Mr.Diwan Singh Chauhan, Advocate.

                                      Versus

M.C.D & Anr.                                                 .... Respondent
          Through                     Ms.Suparna Srivastava, 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, Adarsh Kumar has challenged the order dated 10th

August, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal

Bench, New Delhi in T.A No.343/2009 titled Adarsh Kumar v. MCD

dismissing his petition seeking regularization/confirmation as Lift

Operator with effect from 1st April, 1982 instead of as Electric Beldar.

The petitioner has contended that he was initially working as

Beldar on daily wage basis and he was regularized as Khalasi with effect

from 1st April, 1982. According to him, from 1982 to 1985 he was made

to work on the post of Lift Operator on muster roll basis and he was

shown as Lift Operator at serial No.17 in the seniority list issued on 3rd

August, 2005 and his name had also figured at serial No.10 in the final

list issued on 28th April, 2006.

The claim of the petitioner was declined on the ground that

regularization of the petitioner on the post of Lift Operator cannot be

accepted as he did not possess requisite qualification for the post of Lift

Operator at the time of regularization.

Regarding the seniority list issued on 3rd August, 2005 and 28th

April, 2006, it was noticed that the categories of different employees

were mixed up leading to various conflicting seniority list which were

withdrawn and subsequently a corrected Separate seniority list for each

category was issued.

The petitioner has not disputed that even after issuance of

seniority list on 3rd August, 2005 and 28th April, 2006, the corrected

seniority list was issued in which the name of the petitioner did not

appear as a Lift Operator and his name had appeared at serial No.199

as Electric Beldar. Against the said seniority list the petitioner had not

filed any objections.

In the facts and circumstances, therefore, it cannot be held that

the petitioner fulfills the requisite criterion for regularization as Lift

Operator. The order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality or

irregularity so as to entail any interference by this Court.

The writ petition in the facts and circumstances is without any

merit and it is, therefore, dismissed.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

JANUARY 15, 2010                                 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'k'