Delhi High Court
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Arjun Singh & Ors. on 16 August, 2011
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
$~19.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 327/2010
Date of order: 16th August, 2011
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Appellant
Through Ms. Madhu Tewatia & Ms. Sidhi
Arora, Advocates.
versus
ARJUN SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Anusuya Salwan & Ms.
Renuka Arora, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
SANJIV KHANNA, J.:
The appellant-Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and
Domestic Breeding Checkers have been involved in multifarious
litigations. In the present writ petition, a very limited issue arises
for consideration with regard to payment of salary.
2. MCD submits that Domestic Breeding Checkers are
employed purely on seasonal and contractual basis for the
purpose of educating and preventing breeding of Aedes
mosquitoes in water coolers and artificial containers. They
educate citizens by ways and means to check breeding of
mosquitoes in containers, water coolers and wherever water
accumulates. It is further stated that the MCD maintains a
seniority list and appointments of Domestic Breeding Checkers
is made strictly in terms of seniority as reflected in the said list.
3. Domestic Breeding Checkers had filed W.P. (C) No.
171/2006 claiming regularization of their seasonal employment.
By an interim order status quo was directed to be maintained but
ultimately the writ petition was dismissed. During the period
when the status quo order was in operation, the Domestic
Breeding Checkers were not paid any salary.
4. Aggrieved, they filed W.P. (C) No. 1036/2008, which was
disposed of vide order dated 16th September, 2008 recording the
statement of the counsel for the MCD that monthly emoluments
for the period 1st December, 2006 to 23rd April, 2007 shall be
paid, if not already paid, within two weeks. The appellant-MCD
thereafter filed Review Application No. 249/2009, inter alia,
pleading that the statement made by their counsel was without
instructions and there was no assignment of work to the
Domestic Breeding Checkers from 1st December, 2006 to 23rd
April, 2007. It was also alleged that the said workers were
allowed to mark their presence in the attendance register and
the movement register in the light of the status quo order but
they are not entitled to salary.
5. The application has been dismissed by the impugned
order dated 6th November, 2009 recording various reasons. The
impugned order records the averments made in the affidavit of
Deputy M.H.O. (Malaria & OVBD, who in paragraphs 5 and 6
had stated as under:
"5. In this instant case the Malaria
Inspectors have allowed the 10 DBCs to put
their attendance and to fill up the movement
register on account of the orders of this
Hon'ble Court. However most of the
inspector have not verified the daily work of
DBCs as there was no scientific work, the
temperature not being conducive for Aedes
breeding. None the less all these DBCs
have not detected any breeding of Aedes
mosquito from 1-12-06 to 23-4-07 when they
are meant for checking breeding. There is
no Notice or challan issued in response to
any breeding report of all these 10 DBCs
from 1-12-06 to 23-4-07. All these 10 DBCs
have mentioned in their movement that they
are stenciling the house in a self styled
manner i.e. they are surveying the number of
houses in their assigned locality daily w.e.f.
1-12-06 to 23-4-07. Stenciling is done by
DBCs while visiting any house and a DBC is
to check 50 houses daily. These DBCs have
done stenciling as claimed by them but no
breeding was detected from 1-12-06 to 23-4-
07. As a matter of fact these 10 DBCs want
to stretch there seasonal scientific
requirement for 6-7 months from May to
November to a whole year exercise even if
not scientifically justified there being no work
at all.
6. The petitioners have filled the
attendance forms on their own but the fact of
the matter is that since there is actually no
work during the non-transmission period for
the DBCs the said DBCs have not worked
during the said no-work/non-transmission
season therefore there is no scientific
justification to pay the DBCs for the period
when there is no scientific need."
6. Once it is admitted that the attendance was marked, it is
difficult to perceive and accept that the workers had not reported
for duty. It is also mentioned in the affidavit that the workers had
filled up the movement register. Admittedly there was a status
quo order and the respondent had complied with the same.
Moreover, it is noticed that the total amount involved is
Rs.1,61,688/-, which is to be paid to the ten workers. In these
circumstances, we do not find any merit in the present appeal
and the same is dismissed. It is clarified that the issue relating
to the status of seasonal workers/Domestic Breeding Checkers
and their entitlement beyond the working season are kept open.
No costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
AUGUST 16, 2011
VKR
