Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Azad Kumar vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 16 July, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI M.A. No.1449/2011 M.A. No.1641/2011 T.A. No.1429/2009 (C.M. (M) No. 74/2008) New Delhi, this the 16th day of July, 2011. HONBLE MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MR. SHAILENDRA PANDEY, MEMBER (A) 1. Azad Kumar S/o Shri Ram Kishan R/o K-544, Manglapuri, New Delhi-110083. 2. Mukesh Rani W/o Shri Om Singh D/o Shri Ram Singh C/o Rajpal Bharti R/o Village Kichripur Delhi-110092. 3. Kamla Devi W/o Shri Moti Lal H.No.258, Block D-3 Nand Nagri, Delhi-92. 4. Bhuvnesh Chand S/o Dinesh Chand R/o C-62, Uttri Chajjupur, Gali No.3, Shahdara, Delhi-110094. 5. Raja Kaka S/o Shri Ramji Lal R/o D-1/271, Sultanpuri, Delhi-110086. 6. Rahi Sudden S/o S. Zabardeen R/o E-Block, Gali No.15, Amar Colony, Shahdara, Delhi-110032. 7. Vimlesh Rani W/o Ved Parkash H.No.60, Nehru Gali, Maujpur, Delhi-110053. 8. Simla Devi W/o Shri Joginder Singh H.No.D-2, Gali No.6, Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi. 9. Pushpa Rani W/o Shri Vinod Kumar D-34A, Gali No.8, Jyoti Colony, Delhi. 10. Nirmala W/o Raj Kumar 128, Sector 9, Pocket-4, 4th Floor, LIG Flats, Narela, Delhi. 11. Smt. Bimla W/o Shri Anand Jagdamba Colony, Johripur, Delhi-110094. 12. Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Sohan Pal 58/139, Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051. 13. Kushal Pal S/o Shri Sohan Pal 707, Tahirpur Sarai, Delhi. ..Petitioners (By Advocate: Shri Yogesh Sharma) Versus 1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through its Commissioner, Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. 2. The Director Primary Education, MCD Kashmere Gate, Delhi-6. 3. Assistant Commissioner (Edn.), Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. 4. Assistant Education Officer (Cl.IV), Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Education Officer, Headquarter, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Shri K.M. Singh in OA, Shri R.K. Shukla in MAs.) ORDER (ORAL)
Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) MA 1449/2011 has been filed by the petitioners seeking restoration of TA 1429/2009 as it was dismissed for default on 11.05.2011. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioners that he was busy in some other court so he could not appear when the case was listed. Counsel for the respondents has no objection. Accordingly, this MA is allowed. Order dated 11.05.2011 is recalled. TA is restored to its original number.
2. Petitioners have also filed MA 1641/2011 seeking the interim relief. Since we are disposing of the main case itself, this MA also stands disposed of.
3. In this case petitioners here, also petitioners in the T.A. No. 51/2010, had filed Civil Misc. Petition No. 74/2008 in the Honble High Court challenging the order dated 10.01.2008 whereby the interim stay granted by the Civil Judge was vacated by the Additional Distt. Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi.
4. Perusal of the order dated 10.01.2008 shows that the learned ADJ had considered all the aspects of the matter and had passed a detailed order observing as follows:
17.Since the plaintiffs would have an efficacious remedy of challenging their termination in labour court and seeking reinstatement with back wages, there is no question of irreparable loss being suffered by them. Similarly balance of convenience does not lie in favour of a person who has entered the services on the basis of forged appointment letter.
18. Viewed from any angle the plaintiffs/respondents are not entitled to injunction restraining the appellants from disengaging their services. The impugned order cannot be sustained. The appeal succeeds and is accepted. Impugned order is set aside. Application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC moved by the respondents is dismissed. Trial court record be sent back along with the copy of this order.
5. We, find valid reasoning was given by the learned ADJ while vacating the stay granted by the Civil Judge. We, therefore, find no good ground to interfere in this matter.
6. During the arguments, counsel for the petitioners orally mentioned that 3 out of 13 petitioners, viz. petitioners No.1, 8 and 11, have already been regularised by the respondents themselves, therefore, the same benefit should be given to the other petitioners also. However, we find no such averment has been made by the petitioners in the case, therefore, no directions can be given. If that be so, it would be open to the petitioners to give representation to the authorities mentioning all these facts so that they may decide the same.
7. With the above observation, this T.A. is also dismissed. No costs.
(SHAILENDRA PANDEY) (MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/jyoti/