Subhash Chander Gupta vs North Municipal Corporation Of ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 6528 Del

$~7
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      W.P.(C) 4522/2014
                                                Date of Judgment : 02.09.2015
       SUBHASH CHANDER GUPTA                  ..... Petitioner
                   Through : Mr. Manoranjan, Advocate.

                           versus

    NORTH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR.
                                             ..... Respondents
                  Through : Mr. Parvinder Chauhan and
                            Mr. Nishant Prateek, Advocates for
                            R-1/NDMC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner has approached this court being aggrieved by the order dated 21.01.2014 passed on an application filed by the petitioner seeking review of the order dated 16.02.2009.

2. Necessary facts, as detailed in the writ petition and to be noticed for disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner retired as Assistant Chief Accountant on 30.06.2007 while working on deputation in the General Wing of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) with the last drawn basic pay being Rs. 10,250/-. Prior to his deputation, the petitioner was working as Assistant Audit Officer (AAO) in the office of the Chief Auditor, MCD and was drawing pay of Rs. 9,925/-. As a dispute arose with regard to his last drawn salary and post-retiral

benefits, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the year 2008 which was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and registered as T.A. No. 29/2009. The T.A. was disposed of on 16.02.2009. The petitioner, however, was dissatisfied with the order of the CAT as there was no finding with regard to the prayer made by him with regard to the issuance of a medical card. The medical card prepared by the respondent, according to the petitioner did not reflect his last drawn pay as also his correct designation. The petitioner thereafter filed O.A. No. 3210/2010 which was disposed of with the following directions :

"4. We have heard both the parties and in view of the observations made by the Tribunal on 20.10.2011 and in the light of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Chief Administrator & another Vs. Dr. Abaya Charan Mishra : 1999 SCC (L&S) 660, second OA for the same reliefs is not maintainable. Accordingly, the present OA is disposed of with liberty to the applicant to file review application before the Single Bench, which was passed the order dated 16.02.2009 in TA-29/2009. It is made clear that in case such review application is filed by the applicant within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the period spent by the applicant for pursuing this OA shall be construed as sufficient cause for the purpose of condonation of delay.

5. With these observations, the OA is disposed of. No costs."

3. The petitioner thereafter filed a Review Petition which was disposed of by an order dated 21.01.2014 which has led to the filing of the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has failed to award medical reimbursement of Rs. 62,102/-, incurred by the petitioner on account of not providing the medical card which was withheld by the respondents illegally. Secondly, the petitioner seeks a direction that he should be permitted to pay subscription at the earlier rate i.e. Rs. 6,000/- and not the current rate of Rs. 39,000/-. Thirdly, the card which has sought to have been prepared should contain all the necessary particulars as per the circular of the respondents dated 14.08.2007.

5. Mr. Parvinder Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present writ petition is misconceived as no relief was claimed by the petitioner in the Civil Writ Petition No. 1165/2008 filed in the High Court of Delhi which was transferred to the CAT with regard to the refund of Rs. 62,102/- alleged to have been spent by the petitioner on account of medical expenses incurred on the illness of his wife. The same was neither a subject matter of the Transfer Application No. 29/2009 nor such a relief with regard to enhancement of subscription can be urged at this stage as this was not a subject matter of the writ petition which was transferred to the Tribunal and registered as a T.A. which had also been noticed in the order dated 21.01.2014 neither such a prayer was made in the Review Petition.

6. As far as the filling up of particulars is concerned, Mr. Chauhan has drawn the attention of the court to the health card prepared on 15.05.2009, photocopy of which has been filed to show that the last drawn basic pay has been shown as Rs. 10,250/- and all other

particulars have been correctly filled up. It is submitted that since the petitioner retired as a deputationist, this fact was not filled-in in the card as his parent office was the Chief Auditor, MCD. As far as the filling up of the name of the allotted medical centre is concerned, Mr. Chauhan submits that this is ordinarily filled up by the applicant depending upon his convenience and distance from his place of residence.

7. While we find no infirmity in the order dated 21.01.2014, as the grounds sought to be urged before us were neither raised in the Transfer Application nor in the Review Petition, however to meet the ends of justice and to put a quietus to the matter, we direct the respondents to fill up the name of the medical centre as Tilak Nagar Hospital as suggested by the petitioner. We also direct that in the card in Column No. 2, it should be added 'Retired from General Wing, MCD as Assistant Chief Accountant (on deputation)'.

8. Copy of bank draft has been produced in court which shows that the first bank draft handed over by the petitioner to the respondent in the year 2007 when the subscription was Rs. 6,000/-. The bank draft shall be returned to the petitioner to enable him to revalidate the same and hand over the same to the respondent. The amount of Rs. 6,000/- shall be accepted by the respondent without insisting upon any other payment since the bank draft was prepared in the year 2007 when the petitioner retired. The respondent is directed to prepare fresh medical card and bring the same to the court on the next date of hearing. The writ petition is disposed of.

9. List the matter on 07.09.2015 for compliance.

10. Copy of the order be given dasti to the parties under the signatures of Court Master.

G.S.SISTANI, J

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J SEPTEMBER 02, 2015/sc