Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors vs Rajbala
2012 Latest Caselaw 3110 Del

         THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 10.05.2012

+       W.P.(C) 1266/2003

GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS                                 ... Petitioner

                                         versus

RAJBALA                                                        ... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner    : Ms Avnish Ahlawat with Ms Latika Chaudhary
                        and Ms Urvashi Malhotra
For the Respondent    : Mr U. Srivastava

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

                                   JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The Government of NCT of Delhi is aggrieved by the order dated

08.05.2002 passed in OA 2079/2001 by the Central Administrative

Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby the respondent's Original

Application seeking regularization as a Group 'D' employee with the

Directorate of Education, has been allowed.

2. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, arrived at the following

conclusion:-

"5. I have considered the matter. The point for determination in this case falls within a short compass. The applicant seeks that having been on employment since 12.11.84, she is entitled for regularisation, even granting relaxation as provided by instructions of 31.12.91. Respondents on the other hand state that as she was posted against a Boys Fund post relaxation is not permissible. It is not disputed that the applicant was originally engaged as part time Domestic Science Helper on 18.12.84 and regularised in that post from that date by the order dated 21.7.87. She was also placed on the seniority list on 30.11.87. Subsequently she was screened but rejected for regularisation stating that she was not sponsored through Employment Exchange and was overaged at the time of her original engagement. These objections have come too late in the day, especially in view of the relaxation permitted by Respondents' own letter No. DE 1(16)(3)E-1/91/37071-38070 dated 31.12.1991. The applicant's case deserved to be considered and the failure of the respondents was inexcusable. However, after the decisions of the Tribunal in OA 1031/98, directing them to take action in view of their own letter of 9.1.98, the respondents have extended partial justice by engaging her as water woman on 4.5.99. Regularisation is the next logical step and the respondents have to grant it, extending to her the relaxation permitted by their own order dated 31.12.1991. The applicant would be entitled for regularisation from the day her case was rejected without granting her the relaxations. The respondents version that as she was only a part time water woman, drawing remuneration from Pupils Fund, would not go against her, as she is protected by the decision of this Tribunal in Vidhya's case (OA No. 2722/99) decided on 30.6.2000.

6. In the result, the OA succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to grant regulariation to her, in terms of the relaxation permitted in respondents letter dated 31.12.1991 from 23.3.94 when her case was improperly rejected. She would be entitled only notional regularisation,

with actual benefit in the Group 'D' post against which she has been appointed only from 16.8.2001,when this OA has been filed."

3. According to us, we do not see as to how the petitioner can challenge

the decision of the Tribunal inasmuch as by virtue of the letter dated

09.01.1998, which is Annexure P-6 to this writ petition, the respondent had

been informed with regard to her services and pay by the Vice-Principal,

Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, Qutab Garh, Delhi. In the said letter it has

been categorically stated that the respondent had been regularized since

12.11.1984 vide letter No. F 2(7) -III/87/275 dated 21.07.1987. When the

respondent had been regularized, as indicated and admitted in the said letter

dated 09.01.1998, we do not see as to how she would be denied the benefits

of regularization.

4. One point that was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner

was that the respondent was being paid out of the boys fund and not out of

the contingency fund of the school. As such, the regularization could not

have been done. However, we find that there is a letter dated 08.08.1977

issued by the Directorate of Education (Accounts-III Branch) which

categorically requires the schools to pay remuneration to Domestic Science

Helpers out of the pupil (boys) fund of the institute concerned. It was also

indicated in the said letter dated 08.08.1977 that in case expenditure could

not be made from within the boys fund, necessary proposal should be made

for allotment of fund out of the contingency. Therefore, the argument

raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not at all tenable that the

respondent could not be regularized because her remuneration was met out

of the boys fund and not out of the contingency fund.

5. Another issue that was raised by the learned counsel for the

petitioner was that at the time when the respondent was appointed in 1984,

her age was around 31-1/2 years and this was beyond the age limit of 25

years which was stipulated for general category employees. However, the

respondent, being a member of the Scheduled Caste, would automatically

get a relaxation of five years, which would enable her to be employed till

the age of 30 years. In the present case, the respondent would have been

overage by 1-1/2 years. However, the learned counsel for the respondent

has pointed out that there have been several instances even in respect of

appointments post 07.05.1985 where age relaxation has been granted to the

extent of even about 10 years. For example, he has pointed out that in the

case of one Sheela Devi, the age relaxation granted was of about nine years

inasmuch as she, being a general category candidate, was about 34 years of

age on the date of her appointment. Another instance is of a Scheduled

Caste employee, Ram Murti, who was overage by nine years being 39 years

old on the date of her appointment. Yet, relaxation was granted by the

petitioner. There are several other cases of age relaxation, which we need

not go into. It would be sufficient to say that the age bar is not sacrosanct

insofar as the petitioner is concerned and relaxation has been given from

time to time. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there is, therefore,

no reason as to why the respondent, who has been in employment for such

a long period, should not be given the age relaxation which has also been

given to others, who had even worse cases.

6. In view of the foregoing, we see no reason to interfere with the

decision of the Tribunal. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

V. K. JAIN, J MAY 10, 2012 SR