Delhi High Court
East Delhi Municipal Corporation ... vs Rakesh Kumar on 11 January, 2016
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 208/2016
% Date of Judgment : 11.01.2016
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS...Petitioners
Through : Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh, Standing
Counsel for EDMC.
versus
RAKESH KUMAR ..... Respondent
Through : None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. S. SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G. S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
C. M. APPL. 852/2016
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 208/2016
3. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 17.11.2014 passed
by the Central Administrative Tribunal by which the O.A. filed by the
respondent has been allowed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
working as a Leave Substitute Chowkidar, thus the Tribunal has erred
in issuing a direction to include the name of the petitioner in the list of
Daily Wages Chowkidar. Counsel submits that the respondent was
engaged as Leave Substitute Chowkidar against leave vacancy during
the period from 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2003. Counsel further submits
that no doubt a list of Daily Wager has been prepared but since the
respondent was a Leave Substitute Chowkidar, his name could not
have been included. Counsel submits that the learned Tribunal has
erred in relying upon the judgment dated 22.01.2003 passed by the
High Court of Delhi in the case of Babloo Sharma Vs. MCD & Ors.
in W. P. (C) No. 8361/2002 and the subsequent order passed in
Contempt Case (C) No. 1477/2005.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also
carefully examined the order passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal.
6. The Tribunal has allowed the O.A. and issued the following direction:
"25. In the circumstances and for the aforesaid
reasons, the impugned orders in the respective OAs
are quashed, and the respondents are directed to
include the applicants at the appropriate places in the
seniority list of daily wager chowkidars for the
purpose of regularization and if any of their turn for
regularization as chowkidar has already matured and
became due, appropriate regularization orders be
issued to them. However, in the circumstances, they
are not entitled for any arrears. The respondents shall
complete this exercise within three months from the
date of receipt of this order. Accordingly, the OAs
are allowed. No costs."
7. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the fact that the respondent
has worked as a Leave Substitute Chowkidar between the period from
the year 2000 to 2003. The Tribunal has thereafter considered the
present case in the light of the observations made by the High Court
of Delhi in W. P. (C) No. 8361/2002 Supra more particularly the
orders passed in the Contempt Case (C) No. 1477/2005.
8. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal considering
the fact that the respondent herein has worked between the period
from the year 2000 to 2003 simply because he has been termed as a
Leave Substitute Chowkidar, it would not mean that he has to be
placed differently than a Daily Wager Chowkidar as the work carried
by both the categories is identical in nature.
9. In our view, since the petitioner already maintains a seniority list of
Daily Wager Chowkidars, the only direction issued by the Tribunal is
that the name of the respondent be also included in such a list.
10. We find no grounds to entertain the present petition under Article 226
/ 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed.
C. M. APPL. 851/2016 (Stay)
11. In view of the order passed in the writ petition, the application is also
dismissed.
G. S. SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
JANUARY 11, 2016
sc
