Manoj Kumar vs Delhi Agricultural Marketing ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 206 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                          Date of Order: January 09, 2018
+                         W.P.(C) 217/2018
       MANOJ KUMAR                                   ..... Petitioner
                         Through: Mr. Javed Ahmed, Mr. Anis
                         Ahmed and Mr. Syed Maria Aijaz, Advocates
                    Versus
       DELHI AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD AND ORS.
                                              .....Respondents
                    Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate
                    for respondents No.1 & 2
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
                          ORDER

(ORAL)

1. Petitioner claims to have worked as Mali with respondent-Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board (hereinafter referred to as 'DAMB') on ad-hoc basis w.e.f. 7th August, 2001 till the date of his regularization i.e. 30th November, 2005. The relief sought in this petition is that petitioner's regularization be back dated from 7th August, 2001 as it has been done in the case of Junior Engineers-G.U. Islam and Gulshan Lal.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the Representation of 26th May, 2014 (Annexure P-8), petitioner had sought parity with the above-said two Junior Engineers while asserting that they have been regularized from the date of their initial appointment on ad-hoc basis and so, on parity basis, petitioner ought to be also regularized from the date of his appointment i.e. 7th August, 2001.

3. Impugned Memorandum of 26th September, 2016 (Annexure P-9) deals with petitioner's Representations of 1st June, 8th September and 14th

September, 2016 but does not deal with petitioner's earlier Representation of 26th May, 2014 (Annexure P-8). The reasons put forth in the impugned Memorandum (Annexure P-9) is that back date regularization of ad-hoc service w.e.f. 7th August, 2001 cannot be acceded to as petitioner had worked for 89 days each time and after one day break, he was re-employed on ad-hoc basis. It is pertinent to note that the parity aspect has not been considered in impugned Memorandum (Annexure P-9).

4. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this petition with permission to petitioner to make a concise representation to respondent-DAMB within a period of four weeks from today, and with direction to respondent-DAMB to pass a speaking order on petitioner's representation so received, within a period of twelve weeks from receipt thereof, while specifically dealing with the parity aspect. The fate of representation be made known to petitioner within two weeks thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedies as available in law, if need be.

5. Respondent-DAMB be apprised of this order forthwith to ensure its compliance.

6. With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 09, 2018 s