SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2757

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Surjeet Kumar – Appellant
Versus
North Delhi Municipal Corporation – Respondent
O.A./841/2018



Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi Order reserved on: 06.02.2018 Order pronounced on: 24.02.2018 Hon’ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)

Hon’ble Sh. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)

Surjeet Kumar D/o Late Shri Sukh Beer Residing at: House No.A-23, Maharishi Valmiki Infectious Disease Hospital, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi-110009.

Office at: Rajan Babu Institute of Pulmonary Medicine & Tuberculosis Hospital, Guru Tegh Bahadur Nagar, New Delhi-110009.

....Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Tarun Sharma with Mr. Abid Ali, Mr. Manik Sharma and Mr. Kartik Sharma)

Versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Through its Commissioner, Office at: Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Civic Centre, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, New Delhi-110002.

... Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. D.S.Mahendru)

ORDER By Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)

The present OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:

“(a) an appropriate Relief in the form of Directions against the Respondents, more particularly against the Respondent No.2- Director Health Services may kindly be issued in favour of the Applicant to grant the Relief of Regularization to the extent of being regularized immediately in Service in the Rajan Babu Institute of Pulmonary Medicine & Tuberculosis Hospital of the North Delhi Municipal Corporation on the basis of the Continuous 23 years of uninterrupted Service rendered with retrospective effect along with the Pecuniary & Promotion Benefits guaranteed in terms of the Assured Career Progression Scheme of the Respondents by setting aside the Respondents Employer’s Office Order dated 05.02.2018 in terms of which the said Relief has been denied to the Applicant on the Ground that the Applicant did not fulfil the criteria of 240 Working Days in each Block Year; and (b) also issue such other or further Orders as may be deem Fit & Proper in the present Circumstances of the case in favour of the Applicant.”

2. Factual Matrix

2.1 The present applicant was initially engaged as Daily Wage Safai Karmachari by the respondents vide order dated 19.04.1995 and was subsequently posted at Rajan Babu Institute of Pulmonary Medicine and Tuberculosis Hospital (RBTB Hospital) against a vacant post vide order dated 31.08.1995. The respondents undertook the exercise of regularising the daily wage workers who have joined during the period 1995-2006. It is admitted by the respondents that the exercise for regularisation of the present applicant was initiated by the RBTB Hospital vide office order dated 01.10.2007. During examination of the case, the respondents allegedly found that the applicant had less than 240 working days in the years 1998-99 and 2004-05. The applicant was given an opportunity regarding his deficiency vide letter dated

10.01.2008. The applicant submitted some medical certificate regarding her absence, which was not accepted.

2.2 The case of regularisation of the applicant was again taken up vide order dated 12.07.2011, along with other left- out daily wagers engaged up to 31.03.2003. Again, the respondents did not regularise the applicant citing the same reason as it was cited in 2007. It has been admitted by the respondents that a total of 84 daily wagers who worked on daily wage basis during the period 1999-2006 were regularised as per the extant policy of the respondents.

2.3 The concerned Union, to which the applicant is associated, submitted a representation dated 16.05.2017 to the respondents to regularise the applicant at par with other daily wagers who joined during the period 1995-2006 and were regularised by the respondents. They also submitted several reminders during 2017. As the respondents did not take any action on the representations by the concerned Association, being aggrieved the applicant filed OA No. 2728/2017 before this Tribunal. This Tribunal vide order dated 17.08.2017 directed the applicant to file a fresh representation to the respondents within two weeks and dir

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top