Delhi High Court
Union Of India vs Anita Devi on 24 January, 2017
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 24th January, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 4323/2016 & CM 18168/2016
UNION OF INDIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sangita Rai, Adv.
versus
ANITA DEVI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Rachna Aggarwal, Adv.
along with respondent in
person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has challenged the award of the Industrial
Tribunal whereby learned Tribunal held that late Vinod Kumar be
regularized in service as a mason from 11th December, 2006, the date
when his juniors were regularized.
2. Late Vinod Kumar was engaged by the petitioner as a mason on
1st July, 1986 and he worked with the petitioner till his death on 25th
January, 2009. The deceased worked for 22 years, 6 months and 24
days. The claim of the deceased with respect to non-regularization
was referred to the Industrial Tribunal vide order dated 15th February,
2012. The deceased claimed regularization from 1st July, 1986 or the
date when his juniors were regularized.
3. The petitioner contested the claim on the ground that the
deceased was appointed on 1st July, 1986 after the imposition of ban
on recruitment vide order dated 19th November, 1985. Thereafter,
8982 posts were created by the department pursuant to the directions
of the Supreme Court for regularization of eligible workers before the
imposition of ban on 19th November, 1985. However, the workers
were regularized from prospective dates and not from the dates of
their initial engagement. The deceased was not considered for
regularization since he was engaged on 1st July, 1986. However, after
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v.
Uma Devi, 2006(4) SCC 1 directing the State to take steps to
regularize services of the employees who had rendered ten years of
service as a one time measure, the case of the deceased was forwarded
to the competent authority for regularization but he expired before the
regularization of his service. The claim of compassionate appointment
to the widow was denied by the petitioner as the deceased had not
rendered the service as a regular employee.
4. The petitioner examined its Executive Engineer as MW-1 who
proved the seniority list dated 13th July, 2006 as Ex.MW1/W1 in
which name of the deceased, Vinod Kumar was shown at serial no.12.
MW-1 admitted that Ramesh Kumar, Jeet Singh, Kalu Ram and
Hriday Kumar shown at serial nos.13, 14, 15 and 16 in Ex.MW1/W1
have been regularized on 11th December, 2006. The Industrial
Tribunal held that the deceased, Vinod Kumar would be regularized in
service from the date when his juniors were regularized i.e. 11 th
December, 2006. The Industrial Tribunal further held that the widow
of the deceased would not be entitled to appointment on
compassionate grounds as the deceased was not a regular employee.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged at the time of the
hearing that the deceased workman expired well before the approval
of his regularization. It is submitted that the deceased was not alive to
fulfil the formalities of regularization when the approval of the
competent authority was received for regularization. However, it is
not disputed that the four persons junior to the deceased shown at
serial nos.13, 14, 15 and 16 in Ex.MW-1/W-1 have been regularized
on 11th December, 2006.
6. This Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the finding
of the Industrial Tribunal holding the deceased, Vinod Kumar to be
regularized from 11th December, 2006 when his juniors were
regularized especially when the petitioner itself had recommended the
case of the deceased for regularization but the approval was received
after his death.
7. There is no merit in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed.
The pending application is disposed of.
8. The petitioner has deposited Rs.4,39,740/- with the Registrar
General of this Court in terms of order dated 16 th November, 2016.
The Registrar General is directed to disburse the aforesaid amount to
the respondent by instructing UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch to
discharge the FDR and keep Rs.4 lakh in 50 FDRs of Rs.8,000/- each
from period 1 month to 50 months respectively in the name of
respondent with cumulative interest.
9. The balance amount after keeping Rs.4 lakh in FDR be released
to the respondent by transferring the same to her savings bank A/c
90192010157367 with Syndicate Bank, Nangalraya, New Delhi -
110046 (MICR Code: 110025033, IFSC : SYNB0009019).
10. The original FDRs shall be retained by UCO Bank, Delhi High
Court Branch. However, the photocopies of the FDRs shall be
provided to the respondent.
11. The interest on the FDRs along with maturity amount of the
FDRs shall be transferred to the aforesaid savings bank account of the
respondent.
12. List for reporting compliance on 21st February, 2017.
13. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsel for the parties
under the signature of the Court Master.
JANUARY 24, 2017 J.R. MIDHA, J.
dk
