$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on 2^nd February, 2022

Date of decision: 15^th March, 2022

+

W.P.(C) 10809/2020

M/S GARRISON ENGINEER (CENTRAL),

DELHI CANTT

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Ms. Nidhi Mittal,

Ms. Akshata Singh & Mr. Ojaswa

Pathak, Advocates (M-8800185864)

versus

M.J. PRASAD & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Ms. Meghna De, Advocate.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

Brief Facts

1. This is a petition challenging the impugned orders dated 30^th October,

2019, 27^th July, 2020, and 20^th August, 2020 by which notice for recovery for

a sum of Rs.1,95,980/- and for attachment of property under Sections 136 and

139 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, has been issued to the

Petitioner/Management (hereinafter “Management”), by the SDM, Delhi

Cantt. and by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Delhi

(hereinafter “RLC”).

2. This petition has a long history. The Respondent-Workman

(hereinafter “Workman”) was an employee of the Management since 1982

and he was working as a wireman. He was regularized in 1984 but was

terminated vide order dated 15^th November, 1985. The said termination was

challenged by the Workman. Vide final order dated 16^th June, 2000, the

termination was held to be valid and justified by the CGIT in ID No.87/87

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000939

titled MJ Prashad v. AGEB&RTGarrison Engineer (Central). This order

was challenged by the Workman before a ld. Single Judge of this Court in

W.P.(C) 6796/2001 titled MJ Porashad v. AGEBR&T Garrison Engineer

(Central) & Anr. Vide order dated 17^th April, 2012, this writ petition of the

Workman was allowed in the following terms:

“xxx xxx xxx

11. I, therefore, allow this writ petition. The

"Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public

Health Division No. 1, Panipat", (2010) 5 SCC

497. Resultantly, the petitioner-workman is ordered

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000939

disposed of accordingly.”

3. The appeal against the said order of the ld. Single Judge was dismissed

by the Division Bench, on the ground of delay in filing the same, on 4^th

January, 2013, in LPA No.764/2012 titled AGEB&R Garrison Engineer

(Central) v. MJ Porashad & Anr. and the SLP (C.) No.14018/2013 titled

AGEB & R Garrison Engineer (Central) v. MJ Porashad & Anr., against

the said order was also dismissed on 3^rd November, 2014. Thus, the order of

the ld. Single Judge setting aside the termination of the Workman and

awarding reinstatement and 50% back wages has attained finality.

4. In terms of the said order dated 17^th April, 2012, certain payments have

been made by the Petitioner to the Workman. The Workman has also provided

an undertaking dated 1^st June, 2015, confirming receipt of specific payments

to the following effect:

“

UNDERTAKING

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000939

(c) WP(c) 7317/2014”

5. The Workman thereafter raised a further claim of Rs.7 lakhs towards

some arrears, etc., part of which was also cleared in March, 2016, in the

following terms as back wages:

Govt of India, Min of Defence.”

6. The issue in the present appeals is only in respect of a balance sum of

Rs.1,95,900/-. This, according to the Workman, constitutes the amounts

payable to him, towards Modified Assured Career Progression/ Assured

Career Progression (hereinafter “MACP/ACP”), on the ground that his

reinstatement had been ordered and therefore, he ought to be deemed to have

been in service as the termination was held void ab initio.

7. This claim of MACP/ACP benefits has been allowed by the Regional

Labour Commissioner (hereinafter “RLC”), under Section 33C(1) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter “ID Act”). Consequential orders

have been passed for attachment and for recovery of the said amounts vide

the impugned o