Delhi High Court
Naresh Kumar vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 19 February, 2024
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
Bench: Rajiv Shakdher, Amit Bansal
$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 19.02.2024
+ LPA 139/2024 and CM APPL. 10118/2024
NARESH KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr Kshitij Pal, Advocate.
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Divya Swamy, Standing Counsel
with Mr Yagyawalkya Singh, Mr
Shubham Mishra, Ms Akriti Singh,
Mr Rishav Ranjan and Mr Vaibhav
Shahi, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL)
1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 14.12.2023. Via the
impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition
filed by the appellant, whereby challenge was laid to the award dated
08.05.2023 rendered by the Industrial Tribunal in ID No.977/2016.
2. In the appeal, the appellant had raised two grievances. First,
concerning the failure to regularize him from the date of appointment.
Second, that his pay scale should have been upgraded to Rs.4,000-6,000.
3. What is not in dispute, and something which has been noticed by the
learned Single Judge, is that the appellant had filed writ petition in this
regard, which was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal and
disposed of on 07.07.2009. The Industrial Tribunal having regard to the fact
that the appellant had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, had
rejected his claim via the award dated 08.05.2023.
4. The learned Single Judge thus dismissed the writ petition by
observing that the appellant could not "sail in two boats". It appears that
certain other co-workers also had their claims rejected by the Central
Administrative Tribunal via order dated 07.07.2009, and thereafter,
approached the Industrial Tribunal. The co-workers' action was registered
as ID No.42 of 2016, titled Brijesh Sharma and Ors. v. The Management
of Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The Industrial Tribunal, insofar as this
set of workers was concerned, granted them relief via award dated
01.12.2021. The operative directions issued by the Industrial Tribunal read
as follows:
"...In view of the observations made here-in-above, the reference is
answered in favour of the workmen with the direction that workmen have
to be regularized on the date when they complete four years from initial
date of their appointment with consequential benefits..."
5. We are told by the counsel for the respondent i.e., MCD that the said
award, i.e., award dated 01.12.2021, has been assailed by the MCD via a
writ action i.e., WP(C) 14051/2022. In this context, our attention is drawn
to Annexure P-5 appended on page 136 of the case file. This writ petition,
we are told, is listed on 09.05.2024.
6. We may observe that via order dated 28.09.2022 in WP(C)
14051/2022, the learned Single Judge, while issuing notice, has granted stay
vis-à-vis regularization of the concerned workmen/ However, while doing so
the Single Judge has indicated that the other benefits would be released to
the workmen within eight weeks, subject to the final outcome in the writ
petition.
7. Given this position, we are of the view that the best way forward
would be to set aside the impugned order and revive the writ petition filed
by the appellant, so that the appellant's case can be dealt along with those of
his co-workers. This would enable the learned Single Judge to take a
uniform view with regard to the workmen who are placed in similar
circumstances.
7.1 It is ordered accordingly.
7.2 The impugned judgment is set aside. The writ petition shall stand
revived.
8. The parties will appear before the learned Single Judge on
29.02.2024.
9. The learned Single Judge would be at liberty to adjudicate the instant
writ petition concerning the appellant along with WP(C) 14051/2022.
10. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Consequently,
pending application shall also stand closed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
AMIT BANSAL, J
FEBRUARY 19, 2024/ tr
