Harinder Pal Kaur vs Director Establishment W/C Dda & ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 4161 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                   W.P.(C) No. 5824/2013

%                                              13th September , 2013
HARINDER PAL KAUR                                    ......Petitioner
                 Through:                Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv.


                           VERSUS

DIRECTOR ESTABLISHMENT W/C DDA & ANR.                        ...... Respondents
                  Through:

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.     In RSA 182/2010 titled as Delhi Development Authority Vs. Khem

Singh & Ors. the following order was passed on 10.2.2012.


     "1.            After arguments, it is agreed by the parties that the
     impugned judgments be set aside, however, counsel for the
     respondents/plaintiffs states that his clients/respondents/plaintiffs are
     covered by the exception created in para 53 of the judgment of the
     Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary,
     State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1.
     2.       Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs states that his clients
     were qualified and sanctioned posts were available. It is argued
     that, in fact, there were further promotions which were
     granted to the respondents/plaintiffs.
     3.       Since all these aspects were not in issue in the present suit,
     and therefore, there is no such issue framed nor any evidence
     recorded, accordingly it is agreed that the respondents/plaintiffs will
WPC 5824/2013                                                   Page 1 of 4
      be entitled to make a comprehensive representation to the
     appellant/defendant in terms of para 53 of the judgment of the
     Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) and this
     representation will be decided sympathetically by the
     appellant/defendant in accordance with law. Let the representation
     be made by the respondents/plaintiffs within a period of 2 weeks
     from today and the appellant will decide the same within a period of
     8 weeks thereafter.
     4.       In case any disputes survive thereafter, the
     respondents/plaintiffs will be entitled to approach the Court of law
     for appropriate reliefs.
     5.       The appeal is disposed of subject to the aforesaid
     observations."

2.     This order shows that the judgment by which the suit was decreed

against the DDA/appellant in RSA 182/2010, was set aside. Opportunity

was granted in terms of para-3 to make a comprehensive representation in

terms of para 53 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of

Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, 2006(4)SCC 1. Para 53 of

Umadevi's case (supra) reiterated a limited exception for regularization of

those employees, who were qualified and were not appointed against

vacancies in sanctioned posts but were not appointed by means of regular

selection process where advertisements were issued in newspapers or

persons called through the employment exchange. In para 53 Umadevi's

case (supra) the exception which was created was that if persons were

working for 10 years in their posts, they were duly qualified, and they were


WPC 5824/2013                                               Page 2 of 4
 appointed against vacancies in sanctioned post, authorities were to create

schemes for regularization of only these irregular employees.


3.    Counsel for the petitioner concedes that petitioner was regularized as

an employee of DDA in 1991. Therefore, really the petitioner is not seeking

regularization in terms of para 53 of Umadevi's case (supra) because

petitioner herself says that she is already a regular employee of DDA.


4.    Counsel for the petitioner argued before me that since petitioner was

given a work of a clerk instead of a mate, petitioner should be paid the pay

of a clerk. This argument, in my opinion, cannot be said to arise out of an

order passed in the order dated 10.2.2012 passed by this Court in RSA

182/2010 and in which the only direction was to consider regularization in

terms of para 53 of the judgment in Umadevi's case (supra). The order

dated 10.2.2012 in RSA 182/2010 records that the judgments which were

passed by the courts below were set aside i.e the right which the petitioner

claimed and were granted by the civil courts were set aside, and only limited

direction was issued to consider the claim of the petitioner as per para 53 of

the judgment in Umadevi's case (supra).        Para 53 of Umadevi's case

(supra) since only entitled a person to be claimed for regularization, and

petitioner already stands regularized, no rights arise in favour of the

WPC 5824/2013                                                   Page 3 of 4
 petitioner to question the impugned order dated 26.6.2012 passed by the

respondent no.1.


5.    Therefore, the challenge to the order dated 26.6.2012 on the ground

that the order dated 10.2.2012 passed in RSA 182/2010 does not stand

complied with in terms of para 53 in Umadevi's case (supra) is without

substance and is rejected.


6.    I may however state that in case the petitioner seeks to invoke the

doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟, including by challenging the

administrative order dated 8.1.2010 passed by the employer/DDA, then that

would have to be a subject matter of independent proceedings wherein the

petitioner will have to make out a case for application of the doctrine of

„equal pay for equal work‟, and which is alleged to exist on the basis that

petitioner claims that she worked as a clerk and therefore was entitled to the

benefits which a clerk gets with the DDA/employer.


7.    The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations, leaving

the parties to bear their own costs.




SEPTEMBER 13, 2013                           VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib