Delhi High Court
Govt. Of National Capital ... vs Delhi Development Horticulture ... on 24 July, 2014
Author: Vipin Sanghi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Judgment Reserved on : 17.07.2014
Judgment Delivered on : 24.07.2014
% W.P.(C.) No. 4660 of 2008 & C.M. Nos.18319/2011 & 462/2014
GOVT. OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI
..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT HORTICULTURE EMPLOYEES UNION
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. K.M.M.Khan & Mr N.R.Ram
Kumar, Advocates
% W.P.(C.) No. 4661 of 2008 & C.M. No.8986/2008
UOI & ORS.
..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate
versus
GURMUKH SINGH & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. K.M.M.Khan & Mr N.R.Ram
Kumar, Advocates
W.P.(C.) No.4660-61/2008 & 4669/2008 Page 1 of 6
% W.P.(C.) No. 4669 of 2008 & C.M. No.9008 /2008
UOI & ORS.
..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate
versus
BHAGAT RAM& ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. K.M.M.Khan & Mr N.R.Ram
Kumar, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
1. The petitioner - Government of NCT of Delhi/Union of India has
preferred the present writ petition to assail the order dated 17.12.2007
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
(CAT/Tribunal), in O.A. Nos.1705/2005, 800/2006 and 955/206, whereby
the Tribunal has directed the petitioner to grant relaxation in the upper age
limit of 27, by the number of years that the respondent individuals rendered
service in casual, temporary or ad hoc basis. In respect of Schedule
Castes/Scheduled Tribes, the age relaxation has been directed to be granted
by another five years as per the instructions prevailing on the subject as
issued by the Central Government.
2. The background facts in which the respondent approached the
Tribunal are that the respondents rendered service with the Delhi Rural
Development Agency (DRDA) under the Jawahar Rozgar Yojana as a daily
wage worker in respect of a temporary Scheme funded by the Central
Government. Such casual workers of the DRDA upon being declared
surplus, and similarly placed workers of the Delhi Energy Development
Authority (DEDA) preferred Writ Petition (C) Nos. 323-325/1989 and Writ
Petition No.818/1989 before the Supreme Court of India to seek
regularization. The Supreme Court declined to grant the said relief by its
judgment reported as Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union
Vs. Delhi Administration, Delhi & Ors. 1992(4) SCC 99. However, the
Supreme Court made the following direction:
"In the circumstances, it is not possible to accede to the request
of the petitioners that the respondents be directed to regularize
them. The most that can be done for them is to direct the
respondent-Delhi Administration to keep them on a panel and if
they are registered with the Employment Exchange and are
qualified to be appointed on the relevant posts, give them a
preference in employment, whenever there occurs a vacancy in
the regular posts, which direction we give hereby."
After the passing of the said order, it appears that members of the
respondent Union were not absorbed. A contempt petition was preferred
before the Supreme Court which was not entertained by the Supreme Court.
However, liberty appears to have been granted to proceed appropriately as
per law. Resultantly, O.A. No. 1431/1999, 22686/2000 and 749/2001 etc.
were filed before the Tribunal apart from contempt applications. It was the
case of the respondent that a large number of persons were given
appointment sometime during the year 2001 and later on in terms of the
aforesaid direction of the Supreme Court. In this background, the Tribunal
passed the impugned order directing grant of age relaxation to the members
of the respondent Union so that they could gain absorption and employment
with the petitioner.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The submission of
Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Supreme
Court primarily rejected the relief of regularization sought by the workers.
The Supreme Court only directed that the said casual workers be kept on a
panel if they are registered with the employment exchange and are qualified
to be appointed on the relevant posts, so that preference could be given to
them in employment whenever vacancy occurs in regular posts. The
submission is that the Supreme Court did not direct grant of age relaxation
to such casual workers so as to grant them appointment in future. The
submission is that the direction issued by the Supreme Court way back in
1992 i.e. 22 years ago could not have been intended to operate for all times
to come. Those who could not be granted appointment - for whatever
reason, cannot continue to claim a right to be considered for appointment on
preference basis by claiming age relaxation after the lapse of such length of
time.
4. On the other hand, the submission of respondent is that they have
continuously been representing and seeking employment in terms of the
direction issued by the Supreme Court. The petitioner cannot take
advantage of the non-compliance of the direction issued by the Supreme
Court and defeat the right of the respondents to be considered for
appointment merely on account of passage of time.
5. Having heard learned counsels, we are of the view that the Supreme
Court primarily rejected the claim made by the casual workers, inter alia,
working in DRDA, to seek regularization. The Supreme Court, with a view
to rehabilitate the casual workers, inter alia, of DRDA, who were rendered
surplus, directed the petitioner to keep them on a panel if they were
registered with the Employment Exchange and qualified to be appointed on
the relevant posts so that they could be given preference in employment
whenever they occurred in the regular posts. The said direction, in our view,
did not vest a right in such casual workers to be considered for appointment
in perpetuity. While making the said direction, it cannot be assumed that
the Supreme Court envisaged or contemplated that the life of the panel
would be indefinite, or that such a penal would be kept alive for decades.
Much less can it be assumed that the Supreme Court directed that each and
every person in the panel must be appointed by the petitioner in preference
to others, and that the panel should continue to be maintained till it is
exhausted. Like in the cases of compassionate appointment, the essence of
which is to grant immediate succor to the family of the deceased
government servant who dies in harness, so also the purport of the direction
issued by the Supreme Court appears to be to grant immediate succor to the
casual workers who were rendered surplus. The direction issued by the
Supreme Court did not create a vested right in the casual workers rendered
surplus to get employed with the petitioner in all circumstances, and even
after passage of decades from the date when the direction was issued.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not
justified in directing grant of age relaxation in the matter of consideration of
the case of the surplus rendered casual workers of DRDA so late in the day.
Pertinently, even when the impugned order was passed, 15 years had passed
from the time when the Supreme Court direction was issued. In our view, it
is high time that a quietus is put to such claims for preference in
employment in respect of the surplus rendered casual workers of the DRDA.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed leaving the parties to bear their
respective costs.
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
JULY 24, 2014
sl
