Delhi High Court
Shankar Mali & Ors. vs Achla Singh & Anr. on 11 January, 2017
$~3.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) No. 2559/2015
Date of decision: 11th January, 2017
SHANKAR MALI & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate.
versus
ACHLA SINGH & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, ASC &
Mr. Rizwan, Advocate for GNCTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):
The petitioners, five in number, by this writ petition have impugned
the order dated 15th October, 2014 whereby CP No. 530/2013 in OA No.
893/2012 filed by them has been dismissed.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is alleged non-compliance of the
order dated 22nd February, 2013 passed by the Principal Bench of the
Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) in OA No. 893/2012,
which had directed as under:-
"10. In view of the aforementioned particular stand taken
by the respondents in para nos. 4.21 and 4.05 of the counter
reply and the order dated 28.01.2004 passed by the Hon‟ble
High Court, present Original Application is disposed of with
the direction to respondents to-
(i) Consider the applicants for their regularization as and when
they propose to make regular appointment of Group „D‟
W.P. (C) No. 2559/2015 Page 1 of 4
employees in terms of the stand taken by them in para nos.
4.21 and 4.5 of the counter reply and while doing so, they
would take into account the services rendered by the
applicants with the effect from the dates mentioned in para
4.2 of the Original Application and also their seniority
reflected in the seniority list annexed with the WP(C) No.
4436/2003."
3. The aforesaid directions refers to the order dated 28th January, 2004
passed by the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4436/2003,
Chandrawati and Others versus NCT of Delhi and Others. This order
reads as under:-
"Petitioners were engaged as part time workers in Lampur
Beggars home. Their services were done away with from
21.1.2003. They challenged this in OA 448/2003 seeking
re-engagement and regularisation of their services. Their
OA was disposed of by impugned order dated 30.5.2003
requiring respondents, on the basis of stand taken by them
in their reply before Tribunal to consider them for
regularisation against Group D posts when this strength of
beggars increases in Lampur Beggars home as per their
eligibility and according to the recruitment rules in their
quota and reserved category.
Petitioners felt partially aggrieved on the direction
passed in the impugned order and their limited grievance is
that respondents should be required to accord consideration
to them not only in reference to increase in the strength of
beggars at Lampur beggars home but in other homes of the
Social Welfare Department also as per their seniority
reflected in tentative seniority list prepared by the Social
Welfare Department in which they are admittedly figuring.
Mr. Kailash Gambhir appearing for respondents on
advance notice states at bar that these petitioners shall be
considered against Group D posts available in other beggar
homes also as per their seniority and their eligibility in
accordance with the recruitment rules in their quota. That
redresses petitioners grievance and leads to the disposal of
W.P. (C) No. 2559/2015 Page 2 of 4
this petition by providing that respondents shall consider
petitioners for regularisation against Group D posts as per
their seniority reflected in the seniority list annexure P/3 to
the petition and as per their eligibility in accordance with
the recruitment rules in their respective reserved category."
4. We are in agreement with the Tribunal that the respondents have not
committed contempt. The impugned order dated 15 th October, 2014
records that in terms of OM dated 30th April, 2010, no recruitment at
Group D posts is permissible and hence it is not possible to consider the
case of the petitioners for regularisation.
5. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the name of the petitioners
were included in the seniority list dated 28th January, 2003. This list has
been referred to in the order of the High Court dated 28th January, 2004 in
W.P.(C) No. 4436/2003 quoted above, as Annexure P-3. Subsequently, the
respondents deleted their names from the seniority list on the ground that
the services of the petitioners as part time sweepers was dispensed with on
21st January, 2002 and they were re-employed as part time sweepers on
23rd June, 2011. Thus, they had not worked as part time sweepers for about
nine years.
6. The contention of the petitioners is that they have been
throughout challenging and questioning their disengagement as part time
sweepers by the respondents with effect from 21st January, 2002. It is
pointed out that the petitioners had first approached the Tribunal by way of
W.P. (C) No. 2559/2015 Page 3 of 4
OA No. 1556/2001, which was filed in January, 2001 seeking
regularisation.
7. There may be some merit in the contention raised by the petitioners
questioning the stand taken by the respondent on exclusion/deletion of their
names from the seniority list published on 18th November, 2010, after their
names were included in the seniority list published on 28th January, 2003.
This issue or lis has to be examined and decided. The contempt
proceedings initiated by the petitioners may not be the appropriate
proceedings to decide this controversy. Moreover, we need not examine the
said controversy and issue as the respondents have made a categorical
statement that there is no proposal for regularisation and this is not being
considered. The issue of seniority would only come up when there is a
proposal and appointments are being made on regular basis. The
petitioners, we clarify, would be at that time entitled to raise the said
contention with the respondents and if aggrieved, file appropriate
proceedings.
With the aforesaid clarification, we dismiss the present writ petition.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.
JANUARY 11, 2017
VKR
