Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh Pratap Singh vs M/O Information And Broadcasting on 30 November, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A No.100/4043/2014
New Delhi this the 30th day of November, 2016
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. S. Sullar, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. P. K. Basu, Member (A)
Shri Pratap Singh
Aged 52 years
S/o Shri Ram Charan Lal Sharma,
Working as Fitter under Executive Engineer (Civil)
O/o Civil Construction Wing (CCW),
Door Darshan Bhawan, Phase-I,
Mandi House, New Delhi-110001
R/o House No.162, Village Malikpur,
Kingsway Camp,
Delhi-09. ...Applicant
(Argued by: Mr. A.K. Bhakt, Advocate)
Versus
Union of India and Others, Through
1. The Secretary,
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting,
6th Floor, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Director General,
Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India,
All India Radio, Aakaswani Bhawan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
3. Chief Engineer,
Civil Construction Wing,
6th Floor, Soochna Bhawan,
New Delhi. ..Respondents
(By Advocates: Dr. Ch. Shamsuddin Khan for respondent No.1
Mr. Vikrant Yadav for Respondents No.2 &3)
ORDER (ORAL)
Justice M. S. Sullar, Member (J):
The matrix of the facts and material, relevant for deciding the instant Original Application (OA), as set-up by the applicant, Pratap Singh S/o Shri Ram Charan Lal Sharma, and emanating 2 O.A. No.100/4043/2014 from the record is, that, he was appointed as Fitter on daily rated/muster roll w.e.f. 03.12.1979, on sponsorship from Employment Exchange, Kamla Market, New Delhi by Civil Construction Wing (CCW) of Door Darshan Bhawan, New Delhi (competent authority). He was stated to have been performing his duty as Fitter honestly, diligently and to the entire satisfaction of his superior. It was alleged that respondents have considered the cases for regularisation of similarly situated/junior persons, but his claim for regularisation of service was ignored.
2. The case set-up by the applicant, in brief, insofar as relevant is that his services were illegal terminated since 26.12.1987 by the respondents. He raised an Industrial Dispute under the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, which was referred for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT)-cum-Labour Court.
3. Having completed all the codal formalities, the reference was answered in favour of the applicant, vide Award dated 27.01.2001 by CGIT-cum-Labour Court. The operative part of the Award is as under:-
"20. In view of the matter, I find and held that the termination of the service of the workman was void and inoperative and it is declared that the workman shall be in continuous service with all consequential benefits with full back wages accessible to him (sic) under law. The terms of reference is replied accordingly and the award is given in the like manner".
4. Sequelly, the Writ Petition (Civil) No.934/2002 filed by the respondent-Management, challenging the Award, was dismissed, vide order dated 03.08.2004 (Annexure A-3) by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. However, in the wake of LPA bearing 3 O.A. No.100/4043/2014 No.1049/2004, filed by respondent-Management, the Award of the Tribunal was modified as regards back wages were concerned, vide order dated 08.05.2007 (Annexure A-4), by LPA Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in the following manner:-
"18. In terms of the aforesaid order, the appeals are allowed in part to the extent indicated above regarding non-payment of wages to the respondent-workman for the period from 26.12.1987 to 08.12.1993. The arrear of (sic) back wages for the remaining period shall be quantified and paid within 3 months in terms of the order of the learned Single Judge, failing which it would carry an interest of 9% from the date of the order of the learned Single Judge".
5. Not only that, the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8943/2010 filed by the Management of CCW was disposed of, vide order dated 18.10.2010 (Annexure A-5) by Hon'ble Apex Court, which, in substance, is as under:-
"These appeals have been filed against the impugned common judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dated 08.05.2007.
The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and order and hence we are not repeating the same here.
On the facts of the case, while we uphold the direction for reinstatement of respondent Pratap Singh as a daily wager Fitter, we set aside the direction to award back wages except the amount already withdrawn by respondent Pratap Singh. However, the amount which is still lying in deposit will be refunded to the appellants in these appeals.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs".
6. In compliance thereof, the applicant was reinstated in service and was so appointed as daily wage Fitter on muster roll, vide order dated 04.11.2010 (Annexure A-6) by the Executive Engineer (Civil).
7. As a consequence thereof, the applicant moved representations dated 17.09.2012, 21.05.2013, 14.02.2014 and legal notice dated 03.01.2013 (Annexure A-1 Colly), requesting the Management of CCW to regularise his services from the date, the services of his juniors were regularised, but in vain. 4
O.A. No.100/4043/2014
8. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has preferred the instant OA for a direction to the respondents to regularise his services from the date when the services of his similarly situated persons/juniors were regularised on the following grounds:-
"A. That the applicant has (sic) been performing his duties honestly and diligently with entire satisfaction of their superior officials and having unblemished service records.
B. That the applicant is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service as per law and Award dated 27.02.2001 in I.D. No.3/1996 because the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India set aside the direction to award back wages except the amount already withdrawn by the applicant only.
C. That the continuity of service of the applicant is more than (sic) 32 years and thus he has spent his entire life with the respondents.
D. That the juniors, similarly situated persons/counter parts of the applicant were considered for regularisation but the respondents are not considering regularisation to the applicant in arbitrary and discriminatory manner.
E. That the applicant has been making representations to the respondents continuously praying for regularisation but the respondents are neither considering nor finalizing the same.
F. That the action of the respondents is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory (sic), mala fide, unconstitutional particularly violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice".
9. On the strength of the aforesaid grounds, the applicant seeks to quash the impugned action of the respondents, ignoring his claim for regularisation of his service, in the manner indicated hereinabove.
10. The respondents refuted the claim of the applicant, and filed the counter reply by way of short affidavit, wherein it was pleaded, that the Hon'ble Apex Court did not grant back wages to the applicant, vide order dated 18.10.2010 (Annexure R-1), so his services cannot be regularised. The legal notice dated 01.03.2013 (Annexure A-1 Colly), was stated to have been duly replied by the respondents, vide 5 O.A. No.100/4043/2014 reply dated 28.02.2013/01.03.2013 (Annexure R-2). However, it is admitted that the applicant was reinstated in service as daily wage Fitter in pursuance of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 04.11.2010 (Annexures A-6 and R-3) by the competent authority. Virtually acknowledging the factual matrix and reiterating the validity of their action, the respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations and grounds contained in the OA and prayed for its dismissal.
11. Controverting the pleadings in the reply of the respondents and reiterating the grounds contained in the OA, the applicant filed the rejoinder. That is how we are seized of the matter.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, we are of the firm view that the instant OA deserves to be allowed in the manner and for the reasons mentioned hereinbelow.
13. Ex-facie, the main arguments of learned counsel for the respondents, that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declined the back wages and since the applicant has not mentioned the specific dates of regularisation of the services of persons junior to him, so he is not entitled for regularisation of his service, are not only devoid of merits, but misplaced as well.
6
O.A. No.100/4043/2014
14. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that, on sponsorship from Employment Exchange, Kamla Market, New Delhi, applicant was duly appointed as Fitter on 30.12.1979 on daily rated muster roll by the competent authority (CCW). His services were terminated w.e.f. 26.12.1987. In the wake of Industrial Dispute, the termination of service of the applicant was held to be void and inoperative. Not only that, he was reinstated in service, but at the same time, it was declared that the workman shall be in continuous service with all consequential benefits with full back wages, vide Award dated 27.02.2001 by the CGIT. Although the claim of the applicant of back wages was negated, however, it is not a matter of dispute that his reinstatement with continuity of service was upheld even by the Hon'ble Apex Court, vide order dated 18.10.2010 (Annexure A-5).
15. In this manner, once it is proved on record that the applicant was reinstated with continuity of service with all consequential benefits, in that eventuality he will be deemed to be in continuous service of the Management of CCW for all intents and purposes. Hence, as the applicant has been working on the post of Fitter since 03.12.1997, so he is entitled for regularisation of his service, from the date of regularisation of service of similarly situated persons or his juniors. The mere fact that applicant was not allowed back wages by Hon'ble Apex Court, pales into insignificance, and is not a ground, much less cogent, to deny the indicated benefit 7 O.A. No.100/4043/2014 of regularisation of service of the applicant. Sequelly, he cannot possibly be non-suited for not supplying the specific dates when the services of his juniors were regularised, as contrary urged by the learned counsel for the respondents, because it is for the respondents to calculate the date of the regularisation of service of similarly situated persons or immediately juniors to the applicant, as the entire service records of all the employees is with the Management of CCW.
16. Therefore, it is held that the service of the applicant is liable to be regularised from the date the services of similarly situated persons or juniors to him, were regularised. The respondent-Management has just ignored the indicated claim of the applicant on speculative grounds, despite repeated representations and legal notice (Annexure A-1 Colly), for the reasons best known to it, which is not legally permissible. Thus, the contrary arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents stricto sensu deserve to be and are hereby repelled, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
17. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the OA is hereby accepted. The respondents are directed to regularise the services of the applicant from the date of regularisation of 8 O.A. No.100/4043/2014 services of his juniors/similar situated persons, in the department. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.
(P.K. BASU) (JUSTICE M.S. SULLAR)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
30.11.2016
Rakesh