Director General Works Cpwd vs Kashinath & Ors
2019 Latest Caselaw 5824 Del

$~6

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                             Date of Decision :- 20.11.2019
+      W.P.(C) 11903/2006
       DIRECTOR GENERAL WORKS CPWD               ..... Petitioner
                        Through: Mr.Shashank Tiwari, Adv.
                             versus
       KASHINATH & ORS                                 ..... Respondents
                    Through:           Mr.Ashok Kumar, Adv. for R-1 to 3.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

       REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)

       C.M. Nos.493/2018 (for recall of order dt. 31.07.2013), 494/2018
       (for delay of 76 days)

       1.      The present applications have been filed by one Shri Raj Kumar
       who is not a party to the present petition. He had sought impleadment
       vide C.M. No.13586/2010, which impleadment application already
       stands disposed of vide order dated 31.07.2013.
       2.      In these circumstances, the present applications are also not
       maintainable and are accordingly dismissed.
       W.P.(C) 11903/2006
       3.      The present writ petition filed by the CPWD assails the award
       dated 08.04.2004 passed by the learned Central Government Industrial
       Tribunal cum Labour Court-II, Rajendra Place, New Delhi in ID
       No.28/96.       Under the impugned award, the petitioner has been
       directed to regularise the respondents as 'Senior Mechanic' from their



      WP (C) No.11903/2006                               Page 1 of 3
  initial date of joining service with full backwages along with all
 consequential benefits.
 4.      Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from the
 petitioner, submits that though the respondents had served the
 petitioner as 'Senior Mechanic', the petitioner has regularised them as
 'Khalasi' w.e.f. 11.12.2006 and paid them all consequential benefits
 during the pendency of the present petition after obtaining their
 consent in this regard. He, therefore, submits that in view of this
 subsequent development, the award directing the respondent's
 regularisation as 'Senior Mechanic' from their initial date of joining
 service is not sustainable and prays that the same be set aside.
 5.       On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents while
 supporting the impugned award submits that once the respondents had
 discharged their duty as 'Senior Mechanic' for over 30 years, there
 was no reason to regularise them on the lower post of 'Khalasi'. He
 further submits that even if the respondents had consented to being
 regularised as 'Khalasi' instead of 'Senior Mechanic', at which post
 they had worked for over 30 years, there was no justification for
 regularising them only w.e.f. 11.12.2006 instead of the date of initial
 joining. He therefore, prays that the writ petition be dismissed.
 6.      Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
 the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that in light of the
 admitted position that the petitioner had regularised the respondents as
 'Khalasi' based on their written consent, the direction in the impugned
 award to regularise them as 'Senior Mechanic' cannot be sustained.
 However, there is merit in the respondents' plea that in view of their



WP (C) No.11903/2006                                 Page 2 of 3
  unblemished service of over 30 years in the post of 'Senior Mechanic'
 with the petitioner department, the decision to regularize them only
 w.e.f. 11.12.2006 is wholly arbitrary. I am, therefore, of the view that
 the respondents should be granted regularization from the date of their
 initial joining, as directed under the impugned award.
 7.      The impugned award is accordingly modified only to the extent
 that the direction to regularise the respondents as 'Senior Mechanic'
 from the date of joining service would be read as direction to
 regularise them as 'Khalasi' from their initial date of joining service.
 All consequential benefits arising out of the order would be released
 to the respondents within twelve weeks. In case the petitioner has
 deprived the respondents of the benefits of the old pension scheme
 under the CCS(Pension) Rules by treating them to be in regular
 service only w.e.f. 11.12.2006, all corrective steps in this regard will
 be taken by the petitioner within the same period of 12 weeks by
 treating the respondents in regular service as 'Khalasi' from their
 initial date of joining service.
 8.      The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.


                                                     REKHA PALLI, J.

NOVEMBER 20, 2019/gm