Sh.Gian Chand vs D.T.C
2010 Latest Caselaw 276 Del

*                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                               W.P. (C.) No.325/2010

%                            Date of Decision: 19.01.2010

Sh.Gian Chand                                                  .... Petitioner
                             Through Sh.B.S.Chauhan, Advocate

                                      Versus

D.T.C                                                         .... Respondent
                 Through             Mr.J.S.Bhasin      and      Ms.Rashmi,
                                     Advocates.
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 order dated 30th July, 2009

passed in T.A No.674/2009 titled Sh.Gian Chand v. Union of India and

Ors dismissing the petition of the petitioner declining the claim of the

petitioner for the pay scale of heavy duty drivers as had been awarded

to the employees of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi pursuant to the

4th Pay Commission from 1.1.1986.

The petitioner is working as a heavy vehicle driver and he filed a

writ petition contending inter-alia that the heavy vehicle duty drivers

are getting a pay scale of Rs.1200-2040/- pursuant to the 4th Pay

Commission in Municipal Corporation of Delhi and, therefore, the same

pay scales should be given to him.

The Tribunal has declined the relief to the petitioner on the inter

alia on the ground that he has claimed a new pay scale under the 4th

Pay Commission from 1st January, 1986 after 20 years in 2006 without

any cogent and reliable explanation for delay. The Tribunal has also

declined the relief to grant pay scale equivalent to the MCD drivers

under the 4th Pay Commission on the ground that it was for the

concerned body to accept the recommendations of a Pay Commission

and the petitioner after 20 years cannot contend that the DTC ought to

have accepted the recommendation in the same manner as the

recommendation of 4th Pay Commission as applicable from 1st January,

1986 were accepted by Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

The Tribunal has also noticed that an industrial dispute was

raised by the respondent No.6/DTC Workers Union about the

implementation of the recommendation of the 4th Pay Commission

where an industrial award was passed which was challenged by the

DTC in the High Court by filing W.P No.4684/1994 which was allowed

and the award was set aside. The appeal filed against the judgment of

the learned Single Judge was also dismissed and the order of the Single

Judge was upheld. The Principal bench of the Central Administrative

Tribunal has also held that since the claim of the petitioner had been

rejected on being raised by the workers union, the petitioner shall be

bound by the outcome of the same and cannot raise the dispute

independently now. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been

able to satisfy in the facts and circumstances as to how the petitioner

can claim the same relief which has already been declined to the

workers union. In any case 20 years after the recommendation of 4th

Pay Commission were accepted, the petitioner cannot be granted any

such relief which is claimed by him.

There are no grounds to interfere in the facts and circumstances

with the order of the Tribunal dismissing the petition of the petitioner.

The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

JANUARY 19, 2010                               MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'k'