T.A. 04/2008 With T.A. No. 105/2007. Case: 1. Babu Ram Jha; 2. Hanif Mohd.; 3. Abdul Asis; 4. Om Parkash; 5. Ghasi Ram; 6. Narain Singh; 7. Anokhay Lal; 8. Jai Prakash; 9. Pyare Lal; 10. Bansi Lal; 11. Naval Kishore Vs 1. Delhi Development Authority, Vice Chairman, New Delhi; 2. Commissioner Private, Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi; 3. Delhi Development Authority, Chairman, New Delhi. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | T.A. 04/2008 With T.A. No. 105/2007 |
| Counsel | Yogesh Sharma, Arun Birbal |
| Judges | L. K. Joshi (Vice Chairman) & Meera Chhibber (Judicial Member) |
| Issue | Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 16 |
| Judgement Date | March 16, 2009 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Judgment:
Meera Chhibber (Judicial Member), (Principal Bench, New Delhi)
-
In both these TAs facts as well as counsel are common with the exception that in TA No.105/2007 it is stated by the petitioners that persons who were junior to them have been given the higher pay scales with effect from retrospective date by the Industrial Tribunal, therefore, they are also entitled for the same benefits. For the sake of narrating facts, TA No.04/2008 is being taken as a lead case.
-
It is submitted by the petitioners that they were engaged on daily wage basis against the skilled posts of carpenter, plumber, fitter, painter, masons etc. on different dates from 1976 to 1979. However, they were subsequently absorbed on work charged basis in the lower pay scale of Rs.210-270 whereas, they ought to have been absorbed in the skilled grade of Rs.260-400.
-
It is submitted by the applicants that similarly situated persons had raised industrial dispute for this purpose and the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal gave its award on 14.8.1996 whereby the Management was directed to absorb the similarly situated persons as Mason Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs.260-400 with effect from the date they were regularised as Assistant Mason. The Management was also directed to pay arrears within 3 months failing which they would be entitled to 12% interest per annum on same. Respondents challenged the said award by filing C.W. No. 6503/1998 but that was also dismissed vide order dated 26.9.2002. Accordingly, the order was implemented by the respondents and pay of the similarly situated persons were fixed in the grade of Rs.260-400 vide order dated 23.4.2003.
-
When petitioners came to know about it, they also gave representations to the respondents for granting the same relief to them as well. However, since no reply was forthcoming, they filed Civil Writ Petition No.2800-8/2006 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which was disposed off on 28.2.2006 by directing the respondents to take a decision on the representation of the petitioners dated 25.8.2005 by passing a reasoned and speaking order. Liberty was also given to the petitioners to assail the same, in case they are still aggrieved by the orders to be passed by the respondents. Pursuant to the directions, respondents passed order dated 12.4.2006 but rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that award was only in favour of Amar Singh and Raj Pal which cannot be followed in all other cases.
-
It is in these circumstances, that petitioners had filed the 2nd Civil Writ Petition No.10705-13/2006 and CW No.2056-57/2004 which was subsequently transferred to this Tribunal vide order dated 11.12.2007 in view of Notification issued by the Central Government dated 25.7.2007.
-
Counsel for the petitioners strenuously argued that once relief has been given to the similarly situated persons by the Tribunal, it cannot be denied to the petitioners. He has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.C. Sharma and Others Vs. Union of India and Others reported in 1998 (1) AISLJ 54 and Inder Pal Yadav Vs. U.O.I. reported in 1985 SSC (2) 648.
-
Respondents on the other hand have opposed both the TAs on the ground that petitioners cannot seek advantage of the award of the Industrial Tribunal given in favour of 2 persons only. They have explained that the petitioners were initially taken on daily wages basis on account of temporary exigency of work, without competing with other candidates and undergoing the rigorous norms as laid down by Recruitment Regulations. They were getting only minimum wages as notified by the Delhi Administration from time to time. Respondents have denied that petitioners were appointed against skilled post on daily wage as alleged. On the contrary they have stated petitioners were not holding any post. However, since they had worked with the respondents for few years, their services were regularised by taking them on work charged establishment which was accepted by them without any protest, therefore, petitioners cannot be allowed to rake up this issue after such a long delay.
-
Even otherwise they have explained that all the petitioners were appointed against the available work charged establishment as back as in 1976 to 1979 e.g. Shri Babu Ram Jha was appointed on work charged establishment as Assistant Carpenter in the scale of Rs.210-290 w.e.f. 16.11.1976 on the basis of family planning incentive scheme. Shri Hanif Mohammad was appointed as Assistant Carpenter on work-charged establishment w.ef. 18.11.1976 in the scale of Rs.210-290 on the basis of family planning incentive scheme. Shri Abdul Aziz was appointed on work charged establishment as Assistant Carpenter in the scale of Rs.210-290 w.e.f. 12.1.1977. Shri Om Prakash was appointed as Assistant Plumber on work-charged establishment in the scale of Rs.210-290 w.e.f. 19.5.1979 on purely temporary basis. Shri Ghasi Ram was appointed on work-charged establishment as a Fitter in the scale of Rs.210-290 w.e.f. 1.2.1976. Shri Narayan Singh was appointed as Assistant Painter on work-charged establishment in the scale of Rs.210-290 w.e.f. 22.12.1976 on the basis of family planning incentive scheme. Shri Anokhey Lal was appointed as Assistant Painter on work-charged establishment in the scale of Rs.210-290 w.e.f. 27.11.1976 on the basis of Family Planning incentive scheme. Shri Jai Prakash was appointed as Assistant Carpenter on work-charged establishment in the scale of Rs.210-290 w.e.f. 12.11.1976. Shri Pyare Lal was appointed as Assistant Fitter on work-charged establishment w.e.f. 20.12.1976 in the scale of Rs.210-290. They have thus submitted that regularization was done as per the then prevailing policy and they were regularised in a uniform manner. They never challenged it and have woken up after 30 years, therefore, this OA is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
-
Moreover, if the relief, as prayed for by the petitioners is granted, it would create chaos as all other persons who were regularised along with petitioners would also come to the court, even though till date they have not chosen to come to the court specially because petitioners herein are not the senior most.
-
Respondents have further submitted that petitioners cannot claim parity with Shri Net Ram and Mangelal because Shri Net Ram was appointed on work charged establishment as Assistant Fitter in...
To continue reading
Request your trial