TA No. 23/2010. Case: 1. A. S. Rawat S/o Late Sultan Singh Rawat, 2. Mohd. Akhtar S/o Gulam Sabir Vs 1. New Delhi Municipal Council, Palika Kendra, New Delhi, Through its Secretary, 2. M.O.H., NDMC, Palika Kendra, New Delhi, 3. Medical Superintendent, Veterinary Hospital, NDMC, Motibagh, New Delhi. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | TA No. 23/2010 |
| Judges | P. Swaroop Reddy (Judicial Member) & Dr. Veena Chhotray (Accountant Member) |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Judgement Date | April 06, 2011 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Judgment:
Dr. Veena Chhotray (Accountant Member), (Principal Bench New Delhi)
-
TA No. 23/2010 has arisen from the WP(C) 2986/1995 by transfer of the matter vide the Delhi High Court's order dated 10.3.2010. Out of the two initial petitioners in the Writ Petition, the relief before us is being pressed only in respect of the petitioner No.1 i.e. Shri A.S. Rawat. The learned counsel, Shri Atul Jain, would submit that during the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner No.2, Mohd. Akhtar had expired and the counsel had had no instructions about impleading his legal heirs. Further, Shri Rawat had also, in the meanwhile, superannuated from the service in the year 2009.
Through this TA, the applicant is claiming regularization with other related benefits, including differences in salary, since his appointment as a Dog-cum-Jackal Shooter in 1974 (a Group D post) on the ground of actually doing class III work.
-
The TA seeks the following reliefs:-
(a) Issuance of mandamus or any other direction to give effect to the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.2969-71 and 9074 of 1983-R.D. Gupta and Ors. Vs. Delhi Administration and others by,
(i) Regularization in appropriate post in Grade-C w.ef.. 28.11.1974
(ii) Release the salaries and allowances w.e.f. the said date.
Pay the difference in ex gratia amount.
A direction for fixation of due seniority and promotion in Grade-C along with other benefits as found entitled under the circumstances.
Quash the impugned order dated 17.3.1992 reverting the petitioner (Annex. C).
Award costs and pass other and further order as deemed fit.
3.1 The brief factual matrix of the case is that the applicant had been appointed as a Peon in 1972 and regularized as such w.e.f. 28.9.1972 vide office order dated 22.12.72. As a Peon, he had been posted with the Deputy Education Officer (Annex. B/CA). In 1974, he was appointed as a Dog-cum-Jackal Shooter on regular basis vide order dated 28.11.1974 (Annex. D/CA). The applicant was posted in the MS Branch, Enforcement Department. The post of Dog-cum-Jackal Shooter is also a Group 'D' post.
3.2 It is the case of the applicant that in the MS Branch, he had been made to do class III work. However, vide the communication dated 17.3.1992, an order was passed taking away the class III nature of work from him (Annex-C/TA). Thus as per the applicant, in the MS Enforcement Branch for about 18 years (28.11.74 to 17.3.92), he had performed duties of a class III post. However, he had been paid the salary of only Group D. He had also not been regularized in Group 'C'. Several representations had been of no avail.
3.3 Subsequent to the 17.3.92 order, the applicant had been posted as Gunman in the Cash Branch (Annex. B/TA). As per the applicant, he was still made to do the class III work.
3.4 The learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Atul Jain, would submit the present one being a case of patent injustice in which, despite extracting class III work for a prolonged period, the respondents had not...
To continue reading
Request your trial