ORDER (ORAL)

Justice M. S. Sullar, Member (J)

The crux of the facts and material, essential for deciding the instant Original Application (OA), filed by applicants Virender Kumar S/o Late Shri Desh Ram and Others, and exposited from the record, is that, the applicants were initially appointed on ad hoc basis as Operator, Wireman, Electric Beldars, Fitters and Welder, in between 1969 to 1985 in the Engineering Department of the Respondent No.2-South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC). They were assigned the duty in Hot Mix Plants. Subsequently, their services were regularised in between 1977 to 1990 by the competent authority and initially they were covered under the Employees Provident Fund (EPF)

Scheme.

2. The case set-up by the applicants, in brief, insofar as relevant is that the functioning of all the Hot Mix Plants were closed. At the same time, the respondent No.2-SDMC was directed not to remove and to adjust the persons, who were working on the Hot Mix Plants to discharge their duties in other departments of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) by Hon’ble Apex Court in M.C. Mehta’s case. Since then, they are discharging their duties as such, continuously in the other departments of MCD.

3. According to the applicants, some of the similarly situated persons, who were earlier working in Hot Mix Plants and adjusted in other departments of MCD, were subsequently given the benefit of General Provident Fund (GPF) Scheme, as shown in Annexure A-II. However, the same very benefits were denied to the applicants. They moved representation dated 03.08.2009 (Annexure A-IV). The same was placed in a meeting convened on 29.09.2009 (Annexure A-V), wherein a decision was taken that the employees, who are interested to be governed under GPF Scheme, shall give consent and thereafter, decision shall be taken.

4. In pursuance thereof, applicants gave consent for availing benefits under GPF Scheme, on the ground of parity of grant of GPF benefits allowed to other similarly situated employees. The applicants sought information under the RTI Act, 2005 and they were informed, vide memo dated 27.12.2010 (Annexure A-VI Colly) that 30 such similarly situated employees have been converted from EPF Scheme to GPF Scheme. The same were illegally denied to the applicants. Then they issued a legal notice dated

19.10.2010 (Annexure A-VII) in this regard, but in vain.

5. Finding no alternative, the applicants then filed the OA bearing No.742/2012 in which the respondents were directed to look into the matter treating that OA as a supplementary representation of the applicants, and to decide the same by passing a speaking and reasoned order, which should be communicated to them, vide order dated 05.03.2012 (Annexure A-VIII) by this Tribunal. In compliance thereof, the applicants forwarded the copy of the representation dated 17.03.2012 (Annexure A-IX), which was rejected by passing a very brief and non- speaking impugned order dated 10.07.2012 (Annexure A-1)

by the competent authority.

6. Aggrieved thereby, the applicants have instituted the present OA, invoking the provisions of Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, on the following grounds:-

“(A) That the action of the respondents is violative of Article 14 & 16 of Constitutions of India.

(B) That the respondents have discriminated among similarly situated persons hence the action of the respondents is illegal, perverse and suffers from malafides.

(C) That the applicants and other similar similarly situated persons who are discharging their duties in various zones of the respondents have made numerous representations but the respondents have not decided any representations. The non action on the part of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.

(D) That the conversion from the EPF to GPF Scheme is also beneficial to the MCD. The respondents are delaying the grant of benefit of GPF scheme to the applicants. The applicants were regularized prior to 2004 and no harm and prejudice wo