Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Jaipal Singh vs Delhi Transport Corporation, Govt. Of ... on 24 April, 2025
1
Item No.39 O.A. NO. 3804/2015
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 3804/2015
Dated this the 24th day of April, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. R N Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A)
Jaipal Singh,
Ex.Driver, DTC,
B.No. 19453, T.No. 57378,
S/o Late Sh. Surat Singh,
Aged about 55 years,
R/o Village Bazidpur Saboli, P.O. Nathupur,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana,
Present in Delhi .....Applicant
(Advocate: Mr. Nilansh Gaur)
Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation
Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director
DTC Headquarters
I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002
...Respondents
(Advocate: Ms. Arti Mahajan Shedha, Ms. Manushi Prajapati)
2
Item No.39 O.A. NO. 3804/2015
O R D E R (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J) In the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"8.1. Set aside the impugned order to the extent that for joining, the condition of HMV Driving License and PSV Badge has been made condition precedent;
8.2 Direct the respondent to allow the applicant to join the duties and to further direct them to either offer alternative employment by protecting salary of the applicant or to retire him on medical grounds after subjecting him to a medical examination with all terminal benefits and arrears; and 8.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and appropriate, in the circumstances of the case."
2. Disputing and opposing the claim of the applicant, the respondents have filed reply. The applicant has filed rejoinder and has reiterated his claim.
3. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance we have also perused the pleadings available on record. It is undisputed that the applicant was appointed as a driver under the respondents. Pursuant to domestic inquiry, the applicant was removed from service in the year 1998 and aggrieved by the same the applicant raised 3 Item No.39 O.A. NO. 3804/2015 an Industrial dispute vide ID No. 19/08/98. Learned Industrial Tribunal passed an award dated 07.10.2009 (Annexure A/2). The said award was challenged by the respondents before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by way of a Writ Petition (C) No. 6685/10 and the Hon'ble High Court vide order/judgment dated 03.07.2013 (Annexure A/3), dismissed the Writ Petition. Further, aggrieved by the order/judgment dated 03.07.2013 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the respondents approached the Hon'ble High Court by way of LPA No. 766/2013 and the said LPA was found completely devoid of legal merit and was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order/judgment dated 13.06.2014.
4. Pursuant to the award being upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and referred to hereinabove, the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 14.10.2014. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that, though in compliance of the award under reference, the respondents have reinstated the applicant in service, however, they have neither allowed 4 Item No.39 O.A. NO. 3804/2015 the applicant to perform any duties nor they have made payment of any allowances. He further submits that in the facts and circumstances, the applicant has preferred representation dated 02.12.2014 (Annexure A/6), whereby the applicant has prayed for a direction to the concerned Depot Manager to allow the applicant to join the duty on his reinstatement and also for further grant of lighter duties.
5. When no action was taken by the respondents, the applicant preferred another representation dated 19.01.2015 (Annexure A/7), followed by another representation dated 17.09.2015 (Annexure A/8). He further submits that till date neither the grievances of the applicant have been redressed by the respondents nor the aforesaid representation(s) have been considered and disposed of by the respondents.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued and opposed the claim of the applicant. She submits that undisputedly, the applicant was reinstated in service of the respondents, in compliance of the aforesaid 5 Item No.39 O.A. NO. 3804/2015 award of the learned Industrial Tribunal, affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, however, the applicant was required to report to the concerned Depot Manager alongwith a valid HMV Driving License and PSV badge for further duties. However, till date, the applicant has not produced the required valid HMV Driving license and the PSV Badge to enable the respondents to assign him duties. However, she does not dispute that the aforesaid representation(s) of the applicant have not been considered and disposed of by the respondents till date.
7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
8. The operative portion of the award dated 07.10.2009, of the learned Industrial Tribunal reads as under:-
" AWARD The claim of the workman stands partly allowed. The order of removal is hold as unjustified in the circumstances. Consequently the management is directed to reinstate the workman in the same post with continuity of service for the purposes of fixing the wages, pension, gratuity only.
6Item No.39 O.A. NO. 3804/2015 No back wages are awarded. However the management is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 33,000/- (Rs. Thirty three thousands only) towards the litigation expenses."
9. Undisputedly, once the award under reference has been affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court and the applicant requested for giving effect to the award and the respondents have reinstated the applicant in service, the only grievance of the applicant that he brought to the notice of the respondents vide his representation(s), under reference, was that his valid license expired in the year 2013 and due to injury sustained by him in his leg in 1997 and being suffering from weak eye sight, his HMV license could not be renewed and he may be considered for alternative employment for any other job than a driver or else he may be considered for retirement on medical grounds, with all terminal benefits, as per the DTC Rules and Provisions, and CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
10. However, even after lapse of around 10 years, the said representation(s) of the applicant have not been considered and disposed of by the respondents. The applicant attained the age of superannuation in March, 2016.
7Item No.39 O.A. NO. 3804/2015
11. In the facts and circumstances, the O.A. is disposed of with direction to the competent authority amongst the respondents to consider and dispose of the aforesaid representation(s) of the applicant, as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within 4 weeks of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. O.A. stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
(B.Anand) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
kk/