Delhi High Court
S K Tripathi vs Secy. Agriculture Produce on 15 July, 2015
Author: Mukta Gupta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: July 15, 2015
+ LPA 104/2014
S K TRIPATHI ..... Appellant
Represented by: Ms.Arti Mahajan and
Mr.Manoj Kumar, Advocates.
versus
SECY. AGRICULTURE PRODUCE
MARKET COMMITTEE BOARD & ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Ms.Avnish Ahlawat and
Ms.Latika Chaudhary,
Advocates for Respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
Ms.Jyoti Taneja, Advocate for
Respondent No.3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellant S.K.Tripathi filed a writ petition challenging the
termination order dated October 27, 1998 and seeking a writ of mandamus
directing the Respondents to regularise his services as he had already served
for more than ten years. The case of S.K.Tripathi was that despite directions
by the Supreme Court dated August 30, 1988 the Respondents failed to
regularise him and on false allegations that S.K.Tripathi took bribe of `2
from some drivers his services were terminated.
2. Vide the impugned order dated July 22, 2013 the learned Single Judge
dismissed the writ petition, that is, W.P.(C) No.5515/1998 following the
decision reported as 2006 (4) SCC 44 Secretary, State of Karnataka and
LPA No.104 of 2014 Page 1 of 5
Ors.vs.Umadevi and Ors. The learned Single Judge held the issue before
him was not of taking bribe but whether the regularisation of contractual
employee could be directed and that in the writ petition there was no
averment of the existing sanction post, vacancies in the sanctioned post and
whether the recruitment was through the regular recruitment process. Since
S.K.Tripathi was only a daily wager he cannot be regularised in terms of the
ratio of Umadevi (supra). The learned Single Judge in the impugned order
dated July 22, 2013 did not advert to the main contention in the writ petition
that a petition was filed in the Supreme Court in 1996 by the Union namely
Daily Wagers Union and others vs. Delhi Administration and others wherein
the Supreme Court vide its order dated August 30, 1988 had directed the
Respondents to consider the case of 132 workers including S.K.Tripathi for
regularisation and that their services will not be terminated until their cases
for regularisation were considered. It would relevant to note the decision of
the Supreme Court which is reproduced as under:
"IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.649 OF 1986
Daily Wagers Union & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Delhi Admn.& Ors. ...Respondents
ORDER
The petitioners in this petition are the daily wage
workers working for the Delhi Agricultural Produce
Marketing Committee. Their trade Union is also a petitioner
in this petition. The principal prayer of the petitioners in
the petition is that their services should be regularised and
that they should be appointed on substantive basis since
they have been rendering the services as casual labourers
for nearly six to seven years. The members of the trade
Union were 591 in the year 1986, when this petition was
filed.
Shri Tapas Ray, learned counsel for Delhi Agricultural
Marketing Produce Committee submits that after this
petition was filed the services of 568 daily wage earners
working under the Committee belonging to different
categories have already been regularised against
substantive vacancies and that there are only 132 daily
wage earners whose services have still to be regularised.
He further submits that steps will be taken as early as
possible by the Committee to regularise the services of these
remaining 132 workers also depending on the availability of
the vacancies and that unless and until the cases of these
132 workers are considered for regularisation the
Committee will not submit any outsider in the place of any
of them. He further submits that the services of these 132
persons will not also be terminated until their cases for
regularisation are considered. We feel that the submission
made by Shri Tapas Ray, learned counsel for the Committee
meets the requirements of this petition. We direct the
Committee to comply with the submission made on its behalf
by Shri Ray as early as possible.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No cost.
Sd/-
..............J.
(S.S.Venkataraiah)
Sd/-
..............J.
(N.D.Ojha)
New Delhi
August 30, 1988"
3. In the counter affidavit to the writ petition the Respondents admitted
that directions were passed by the Supreme Court however, it was stated that
out of 132 daily wager, services of 104 were regularised according to their
seniority and the remaining daily wagers' cases were under consideration for
regularisation of their services. However, as far as S.K.Tripathi was
concerned he was not regularised as he had been disengaged in view of the
fact that he was found indulging in illegal activities of extorting extra money
from truck drivers/owners while giving them gate passes in a surprise raid
conducted on June 19, 1997. The counter affidavit is totally silent that how
the seniority and the vacancy position were calculated pursuant to the order
of the Supreme Court dated August 30, 1988.
4. In view of the fact that the learned Single Judge did not take note of
the Supreme Court judgment S.K.Tripathi filed a review petition again
reiterating the decision of the Supreme Court directing that the services of
these 132 persons will not be terminated until their cases for regularisation
were considered.
5. The learned Single Judge vide the impugned order dated November
13, 2013 again failed to notice this aspect and held that after passing of the
judgment in the case of Umadevi (supra) no person who is a temporary
employee or a casual employee or a daily wager can be regularised failing to
note that a direction of the Supreme Court was already passed in favour of
the Appellant. In the impugned order dated November 13, 2013 again there
was no reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court dated August 30,
1988.
6. Considering the fact that vide the two impugned orders the learned
Single Judge failed to note the material contention of S.K.Tripathi that
directions to consider his case for regularisation and not to terminate the
services till then has not been considered by the learned Single Judge, the
same are accordingly set aside. The writ petition be thus listed before the
learned Single Judge as per the Roster Bench on August 03, 2015.
7. Appeal is disposed of.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
JULY 15, 2015
'vn'
