Harinder Singh vs D.T.C. & Anr.
2013 Latest Caselaw 189 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                          Date of Decision : January 11, 2013

+                            WP(C) 154/2013

       HARINDER SINGH                                         ..... Petitioner
               Represented by:              Mr.T.N.Tripathi, Advocate

                                     versus
       D.T.C. & ANR.                                  ...Respondents
                  Represented by: Ms.Avinash Ahlawat, Advocate
                  with Ms.Latika Chaudhary, Advocate.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner started unauthorisedly absenting himself from duty on June 8, 1989 and as per Regulation 14(10)(c) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952 he was deemed to have resigned from service w.e.f. September 07, 1989 i.e. upon his being unauthrisedly absent for a continuous period of 90 days.

2. The Disciplinary Authority of the writ petitioner passed an order on September 07, 1989 regarding as aforesaid.

3. The petitioner sat quiet in his house and only on October 20, 2011 i.e. after 22 years submitted an appeal questioning his being treated as deemed to have resigned from service. He sent a reminder. On March 15, 2012 the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal. The petitioner filed O.A. No.2470/2012 before the Central Administrative Tribunal

challenging the order dated September 07, 1989. On grounds of limitation the challenge has failed, the Original Application being held to be time barred.

4. It may be true that the Regulations in question has since been held to be ultra vires in the decision reported as 95 (2002) DLT 425 Delhi Transport Corporation v. Om Kumar & Ors. following the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court reported as 1991 Supp. (1) SCC 600 Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress and Ors. where vires of Regulation 9 of similar Regulation was held to be ultra vires of the Constitution of India.

5. But, we are of the opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner notwithstanding he having joined service on November 13, 1963 for the reason the order dated September 07, 1989 was accepted by the petitioner till when he filed the appeal after more than 22 years on October 20, 2011; which appeal was rightly rejected.

6. We are conscious of the fact that the Regulation in question has since been held to be ultra vires the Constitution of India, but cannot ignore the fact that a pari materia Regulation was struck down by the Supreme Court in the year 1991 and the impugned order was passed in the year 1989. But we cannot order petitioner to be reinstated in service since he would have superannuated long back had he continued to be in service.

7. We had in our mind to direct the respondents to treat the petitioner as having voluntarily retired w.e.f. September 07, 1989 so that he could earn pension but refrain from passing such an order inasmuch as the petitioner was a member of the Contributory Provident Scheme and in the year 1989 DTC had not even introduced a pension scheme; which we are informed was brought into force only in the year 1991.

8. Being a member of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme it is apparent that the petitioner would have received the money lying in deposit in his CPF account maintained by DTC.

9. Be that as it may, if the petitioner has not received the requisite amount lying in deposit in the CPF account he is advised to complete the codal formalities and receive the amount.

10. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.

11. No costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(VEENA BIRBAL) JUDGE JANUARY 11, 2012 skb