Ram Kumar vs Uoi & Anr.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4541 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI



%                   Decision Delivered on: 15th September, 2011



+      W.P.(C) NO.7437/2000



       RAM KUMAR                                    .....Petitioner
               Through:         Mr. A.P. Dhamija, Advocate

                               -versus-

       UOI & ANR.                                   .....Respondents
                Through:        None


       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

       1.     Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
              the Order?
       2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not?
       3.     Whether the Order should be reported in the Digest?



A.K. SIKRI, J. (ORAL)

1. The Petitioner herein had preferred O.A. No.299/1997

before the Central Administrative Tribunal claiming the relief to

the effect that he be absorbed as permanent employee for the

post of Driver with effect from 18.04.1981 and his seniority be

also given on that basis. The O.A. has been dismissed by the

Tribunal vide impugned Order dated 17.05.2000. The Tribunal

has taken note of the facts that the Petitioner was initially

appointed as Khalasi on casual basis and he himself had offered

for regularization for the said post on 26.02.1996 on the basis of

which regularization was accorded to him vide orders dated

26.02.1996. The Tribunal further observed that the Petitioner

had been given the grade of Driver i.e. `1,200-1,800/- on ad hoc

basis in the construction organization which is a project office

and he is still holding the post and has not been demoted. The

contention of the Respondent to the effect that the Petitioner

was having lien in Class IV post in Delhi Division was noted by

the Tribunal and on that basis the Tribunal has concluded that

orders dated 26.02.1996 issued by the Respondent regularizing

the Petitioner in the grade of `750-940/- against the 60%

reserved posts of Khalasi is valid.

2. In this Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner, the Petitioner

has pointed out that the issue raised in the O.A. did not pertain

to the regularization of the Petitioner against the post of

Khalasi. It was submitted by him that as per the relevant rules

and instructions for appointment to the post of Driver on regular

basis the Petitioner was required to appear in trade test and the

Petitioner had appeared in the said test and was declared

successful vide convocation dated 20.03.1997. Predicated on

that, the Petitioner had staked the claim that he should have

been regularized in the post of Driver. We find that this issue

has not been properly dealt with by the Tribunal. The Tribunal

has, no doubt, stated that the Respondent have duly considered

the application for regularization in the grade of Khalasi in

accordance with relevant rules but it has not dealt with the

claim of the Petitioner that on passing of the trade test he

should have been regularized as Driver more particularly when

person junior to him had been regularized.

3. It appears that since the Petitioner had not appeared

before the Tribunal, the Tribunal presumed that the Petitioner

did not have any further grievance. Since we are of the opinion

that the issue raised by the Petitioner is not dealt with and any

finding given thereupon conclusively, the order of the Tribunal

needs to be set aside. We accordingly quash the impugned order

and remit the case back to the Tribunal for decision of the O.A.

on merits in accordance with law.

A.K. SIKRI, J.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.

SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 mk