Delhi High Court
Sripal vs North Delhi Municipal ... on 4 February, 2013
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 72/2013 and CM No. 1890/2013
SRIPAL ..... Appellant
Through: Mr Anuj Agarwal, Adv.
versus
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent
Through: Ms Saroj Bidawat, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
ORDER
% 04.02.2013
The appellant before us was appointed as Electric Beldar with the
respondent No.1 on 4.3.1973 on muster roll/daily wage basis. It appears that
for quite some time, the appellant was made to work as Electric Motor
Driver. On 26.4.1988, the appellant was regularized in the post of Electric
Beldar w.e.f. 1.4.1980. The case of the appellant is that at that time he was
discharging functions of Electric Motor Driver. Being aggrieved on his not
being regularized in the post of Electric Motor Driver, the appellant raised
an industrial dispute, wherein an award was passed on 16.03.2001, holding
that the appellant was entitled to be regularized as an Electric Motor Driver
w.e.f. 15.05.1977 and was also entitled to be paid arrears in the post of
Electric Motor Driver from the same date. The respondent filed a writ
petitioner challenging the award of the Tribunal. Vide the impugned order
dated 29.02.2012, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by
the respondent. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant is before us by way of this
appeal.
During the course of arguments, we specifically asked the learned
counsel for the appellant as to whether any order appointing him to the post
of Electric Motor Driver on daily wage basis or other wise was ever issued
by the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant admitted that no such
order was issued, though he submitted that the appellant was made to
perform the duties of Electric Motor Driver, w.e.f. 15.05.1977. In the
absence of any order, appointing the appellant to the post of Electric Motor
Driver even on daily wage basis, he had no legal right to be regularized in
the said post and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in
this regard cannot be disputed.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant
drew our attention to a document which purports to be the final list of EMD
Wireman Grade-I and EMD Wireman Grade-II and Miscellaneous
Categories, wherein the name of the appellant appears at serial No. 22 on
page 88 of the appeal file. This document does not indicate by whom this list
was issued and under what authority. No reliance upon this list appears to
have been placed before the learned Single Judge, since it finds no reference
in the impugned order. Therefore, we cannot say, on the basis of this
document and in the absence of any order appointing/engaging the appellant
as Electric Motor Driver, that he was actually appointed as Electric Motor
Driver.
More importantly, a perusal of the Recruitment Rules for the post of
Electric Motor Driver would show that the recruitment to the said post can
be made only by way of direct appointment and there is no provision in the
said Rules for promoting an Electric Beldar to the post of Electric Motor
Driver. Another important aspect in this regard is that admittedly, the
appellant was not even eligible for being appointed as an Electric Motor
Driver on 15.05.1977, the date from which he seeks regularization as
Electric Motor Driver. A person, who is not even eligible to be appointed to
a post, can certainly not be regularized on that post.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no merit in the appeal and
the same is dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
V.K. JAIN, J
FEBRUARY 04, 2013/ 'raj'
