Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Virender Singh & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 1466 Del

         THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Judgment delivered on: 01.03.2012


+       W.P.(C) 2621/2010 & CM 5225/2010


MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI                                 ... Petitioner

                                         versus

RAM AVTAR & ORS                                                ... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner          : Ms Mini Pushkarna
For the Respondent Nos. 1-23: Ms Rekha Palli with Ms Punam Singh
For the Respondent No.24 : Ms Radhika Gupta proxy for Ms Kanika Agnihotri

                                          AND

+       W.P.(C) 2671/2010 & CM 5318/2010 & CM 12003/2011

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI                                 ... Petitioner

                                         versus

VIRENDER SINGH & ORS                                           ... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner          : Ms Mini Pushkarna
For the Respondent Nos. 1-51: Ms Rekha Palli with Ms Punam Singh
For the Respondent No.52 : Ms Radhika Gupta proxy for Ms Kanika Agnihotri




WP (C) Nos.2621/2010 & 2671/2010                                      Page 1 of 5
 CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

                                   JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) has filed these writ

petitions, which arise out of the common order dated 18.11.2011 passed in

TA 931/2009 and TA 933/2009 by the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Principal Bench, New Delhi. Earlier, the private respondents had

approached this Court by way of two separate writ petitions, which were

subsequently transferred to the Tribunal and were given the aforesaid TA

Nos. 931/2009 and TA 933/2009.

2. The private respondents are pump operators, malis and chowkidars,

who were hitherto employed in the Delhi Development Authority (DDA).

By an order dated 02.12.1994, certain colonies had been transferred from

the Delhi Development Authority to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, as

a result of which, the private respondents, who were DDA employees also

stood transferred to MCD. The terms and conditions of their transfer, inter

alia, included clause 6, which is as follows:-

"Every employee shall on and from the date of his transfer to the Corporation, shall become an employee of the Corporation with such designation as the Commissioner may determine and shall hold office by the same tenure, remuneration and on the same terms and conditions of service as he would have held, if he had continued to be in the DDA unless and until such tenure, remuneration and terms and conditions are duly altered by the Corporation. However, the same shall not be to his disadvantage without the previous sanction of the Corporation."

(underlining added)

3. The private respondents had claimed the ACP pay scale as was

applicable in the DDA, whereas they had been given the ACP pay scale as

was applicable with the MCD. The private respondents had urged before

the Tribunal that clause 6 clearly saved their future benefits which they

would have got had they continued in the DDA. On the other hand, it was

argued on behalf of the petitioner that the benefits that were available to the

private respondents ought to be reckoned only on the date of the transfer

and should not extend to future benefits.

4. However, on construing and considering the provisions of clause 6 of

the terms and conditions of transfer, it is apparent that the private

respondents were entitled to the same terms and conditions of service as

they would have had if they had continued with the DDA unless and until

such tenure, remuneration and terms and conditions were duly altered by

the MCD. Admittedly, there has been no such alteration of the terms and

conditions of service. Consequently, the private respondents would be

entitled to be treated as if they had continued with the DDA and, therefore,

all the benefits that would have been derived by them had they continued

with the DDA, would be available to them. This is exactly what the

Tribunal has decided, as would be apparent from the following extract:-

"6. On careful consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, in our considered view, on transfer of applicants from DDA to MCD what has been protected and safeguarded is not the terms and conditions, as existed but also on the premise that the same would be admissible if they had continued to be in DDA. This clearly establishes that even the future benefits are also protected in DDA. The only exception to deny is when the terms and conditions are altered by the Corporation, which have not been altered. As we find that in DDA the higher pay scale has been given to these categories as ACP pay scale, the same having been lowered down, without any alteration of service conditions, the conditions are disadvantageous to the applicants and they are altered to their detriment without any opportunity, which cannot be countenanced in law.

7. Accordingly, the TAs stand disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of applicants for enhancing the pay scale in ACP, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs."

5. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the

Tribunal. The writ petitions are dismissed.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

V. K. JAIN, J MARCH 01, 2012 SR