Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 843
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJIV KHANNA and CHANDER SHEKHAR, JJ.
KRIPA NARAIN SHAHI AND ANR – Petitioner
Versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL – Respondent
W.P.(C) 2193 of 2017
Decided On : 10-03-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. Amit Kumar
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of an application for antedating the conversion from Temporary Muster Roll to Regular Muster Roll can be upheld based on the petitioner's failure to meet the required qualifications for the desired position and their prior offer of appointment to another position.
Headnote:
Regular Muster Roll - Employment Dispute - Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, Section 38; N.D.M.C. Act, 1994, Resolutions No.4(v), No.3(v), No.3(ii) - The court discussed the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 and the N.D.M.C. Act, 1994, along with various resolutions related to the regularization of Temporary Muster Roll employees to Regular Muster Roll. The court emphasized that the seniority of a muster roll worker is determined by the number of days worked, as specified in the resolutions. The court also referred to a Supreme Court decision regarding the time limit for claiming relief, which influenced the rejection of the petitioners' representations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the dismissal of their application for antedating their conversion from Temporary Muster Roll to Regular Muster Roll by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petitioners had been offered appointment to the post of Assistant Line Mate, but they were not satisfied and sought appointment as Lift Operators.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners did not meet the educational and technical qualifications required for the post of Lift Operator and that they had already been offered appointment to another position. The court affirmed the findings of the authorities regarding discrimination and the regularization of other employees.
Issues: The issues included the rejection of the petitioners' application for antedating their conversion from Temporary Muster Roll to Regular Muster Roll, the petitioners' dissatisfaction with the offered appointment, and the question of discrimination in the appointment process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the rejection of the petitioners' application based on their failure to meet the required qualifications for the desired position and their prior offer of appointment to another position. The court also affirmed the findings of the authorities regarding the regularization of other employees.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed by the court.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
Kripa Narain Shahi and Abdul Bari Khan, in this writ petition, impugn order dated 21st April, 2016, whereby OA No. 1448/2012 filed by them has been dismissed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal, for short). The order dated 21st September, 2016, by which Review Application No. 145/2016 was dismissed, has also been challenged.
2. Petitioners-Kripa Narain Shahi and Abdul Bari Khan came on the Temporary Muster Roll of the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) with effect from 5th April, 1991 and 9th May, 1994, respectively. Both of them were brought on Regular Muster Roll with effect from 11th June, 2002. The two petitioners had earlier filed W.P. (C) Nos. 17970 and 21918 of 2005 for antedating their conversion from Temporary Muster Roll to Regular Muster Roll. These writ petitions were transferred to the Tribunal and registered as TA Nos. 1076 and 1077 of 2009. These TAs were disposed of vide order dated 14th May, 2010, giving directions to the NDMC to examine the issue after giving liberty to the petitioners to make representation and furnish documents.
3. The NDMC thereafter passed a detailed order dated 25th October, 2010, meeting out and stating that the case of discrimination as set out by the petitioners was not made out. NDMC, it was stated, has followed a uniform policy for taking on record Temporary Muster Roll as Regular Muster Roll employees. The said order is a detailed one and has been reproduced in the impugned order itself. For the sake of completeness, we would also like to reproduce the relevant portions of the order dated 25th October, 2010, which reads:-
“Hon’ble CAT vide its orders dated 14/5/2010 directed the respondent, N.D.M.C. to examine the issue raised by the applicants for ante-dating their conversion from Temporary Muster Roll to Regular Muster Roll on the basis of the records available with the respondent N.D.M.C. While examining the issue, the respondents have been directed to give an opportunity to applicants to represent and furnish documents and statement, if needed to show how the ante-dating would be possible and whether it would be admissible as per the N.D.M.C. Council’s Resolution and pass a speaking order.
2. The applicants, as per directions of the Hon’ble CAT, appeared before the Chairperson, NDMC on 14.06.2010 and 21.09.2010. They also appeared before the undersigned on 25.06.2010 and again on 24.09.2010 where Deputy Director (Elect.), Section Officer (Electric Establishment-I), and Section Officer (Civil Establishment II) were also present. The applicants reiterated their claims that Para No. 1 of the Writ Petition filed before the High Court may be considered while finalizing their cases.
3. The applicant No. 1, Shri K.N. Sahai contended that Para No. 1 of the Writ Petition filed by him before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi may be read as part and parcel of the submission made by him and his case may be considered accordingly. In Para No.1 of WP (C) 17970/05 the applicant had claimed that he was brought on the roll as Regular Muster worker vide Orders dated 11.06.2002, while he was entitled to the same status from at least 09.10.1992 when his juniors, as per details given below, were converted to Regular Muster Roll workers and he is further entitled to be regularized after six years, i.e., w.e.f. 1998.
SI No.
NAME OF THE CANDIDATE
NUMBER OF DAYS WORKED AS TMR
DATE ON WHICH RMR STATUS GRANTED
1
SHRI HARISH ASSAL, CARD NO. 2147
298
9.10.1992
2
SHRI RADHESHAM, CARD NO.2153
308
9.10.1992
3
SHRI SUKH PAL SINGH CARD NO.2151
309
9.10.1992
4
SHRI DEEPAK ASSAL, CARD NO.2146
299
9.10.1992
4. After going through the records available with the respondent N.DM.C. and analyzing the facts the position that has emerged is as under:
(i) The applicant No.1, Shri K.N. Shahi was engaged on Tem
