Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Virender Singh & 49 Others vs The Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ... on 18 November, 2009
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench TA No.931/2009 With TA No.933/2009 New Delhi this the 18th day of November, 2009. Honble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J) Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) TA No.933/2009 Virender Singh & 49 others -Applicants -Versus- The Municipal Corporation of Delhi through its Commissioner and 2 others. -Respondents TA No.931/2009 Ram Avtar & 22 others -Applicants -Versus- The Municipal Corporation of Delhi through its Commissioner and 2 others. -Respondents Memo of Appearance: For the Applicants - Ms. Rekha Palli For the respondents - Shri Arun Birbal and Ms. Suparna Srivastava) O R D E R Honble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J):
As these TAs are founded on common facts with an identical question of law, are being disposed of by this common order.
2. By virtue of these TAs certain categories of employees, including pump operators, malis and chowkidars have sought higher pay scale in financial upgradation granted to them, basically on the ground that vide office order dated 2.12.1994 on transfer of DDA colonies to MCD, clause-6 safeguards the conditions of service of DDA employees in the past or in future, which reads as follows:
6. Every employee shall on and from the date of his transfer to the Corporation shall become an employee of the Corporation with such designation as the Commissioner may determine and shall held office by the same tenure, remuneration and on the same terms and conditions of service as he would have held if he had continued to be in the DDA unless and until such tenure, remuneration and terms and conditions are duly altered by the Corporation. However, the same shall not be to his disadvantage/without the previous sanction of the Corporation.
3. It is stated that in DDA, ACP pay scale to these categories is higher than what has been given by the respondents in MCD and as the terms and conditions are not altered by the Corporation they are bound to give the same to the applicants.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for DDA states that applicants being erstwhile work charged employees, clause-6, if literally interpreted, protects the service conditions, as existing on the date of transfer and would not apply in future.
5. However, the learned counsel appearing for MCD has also resisted the claim on the ground that ACP Scheme does not envisage a higher pay scale than what is entitled. Respondents vide Resolution No.334 dated 4.9.2000 approved implementation of the ACP Scheme and accordingly the same has been given to the applicants, which is in consonance with law.
6. On careful consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, in our considered view, on transfer of applicants from DDA to MCD what has been protected and safeguarded is not the terms and conditions, as existed but also on the premise that the same would be admissible if they had continued to be in DDA. This clearly establishes that even the future benefits are also protected in DDA. The only exception to deny is when the terms and conditions are altered by the Corporation, which have not been altered. As we find that in DDA the higher pay scale has been given to these categories as ACP pay scale, the same having been lowered down, without any alteration of service conditions, the conditions are disadvantageous to the applicants and they are altered to their detriment without any opportunity, which cannot be countenanced in law.
7. Accordingly, the TAs stand disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of applicants for enhancing the pay scale in ACP, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Let a copy of this order be also kept in TA No.933/2009.
(Dr. Veena Chhotray) (Shanker Raju) Member (A) Member (J) San.