Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
G S Mehra S/O Shri Ram Chander vs Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board on 1 March, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi M.A.No.3209/2010 In T.A.No.523/2009 New Delhi, this the 1st day of March 2011 Honble Dr. K.B.S. Rajan, Member (J) Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) G S Mehra s/o Shri Ram Chander r/o D-2/172, Jeevan Park, Pankha Road New Delhi-59 ..Applicant (By Advocate: Ms. Sunita Tiwari) Versus Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Through the Chief Executive Officer Vikas Kutir, IP Estate, New Delhi-1 ..Respondent (By Advocate: Shri Vinay Sabharwal) O R D E R
Dr. K.B.S. Rajan:
This is a peculiar case. The applicant, an employee of MCD at the material point of time working as Assistant Director and looking after the current duty charge of the post of Deputy Director filed writ petition no. 1836/2008 seeking the following relief from the High Court of Delhi:-
a writ quashing charge sheet dated 21.12.2006 issued by the Additional Commissioner, slum & JJ, a writ quashing order dated 15.2.2008 by virtue of which the current duty charge of the petitioner has been discontinued by way of punishment; and direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner on adhoc basis on Deputy Director Slum and JJ w.e.f. 27.09.2005, the day on which his juniors /other colleagues were promoted to the said post.
2. The MCD having been brought within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal in respect of service matters of its employees, the writ petition was transferred and registered as T.A. 523/2009. After exchange of pleadings the tribunal passed the following order:-
6. The applicant has been looking after the current duty charge of the post of Deputy Director since 2004 whereas his juniors, who happened to perform the current duty charge, have been promoted as Deputy Director on ad hoc basis since 2005, in this view of the matter taking off the said charge from the applicant only on the basis of penalty of censure, which has now been declared illegal as a consequence thereof the applicant till his retirement has to be deemed to be on current duty charge and deserves consideration for ad hoc promotion as has been done in cases of his junior colleagues from 2005 for which a review DPC or the methodology as adopted by the respondents shall be brought in force so that the applicant be placed at par with his junior colleagues with all consequential benefits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Present Original Application stands disposed of accordingly. (By an order dated 25.11.2010 the word juniors appearing in the above paragraph was deleted).
3. MA 1157 of 2010 was filed by the applicants praying for a direction against to the respondent to immediately comply with the orders. While considering the above MA, this Tribunal on 7.9.2010 passed the following order:-
Directions were issued to Slum and JJ Department, MCD before it has not become the Board and was still part of the MCD.
In such view of the matter, whatever apt methodology is adopted by MCD in consultation with the Slum and JJ Department the same be used to comply with out directions within two weeks from today.
List on 24.9.2010.
4. On 19.11.2010 counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant has already retired from the service and insofar as the directions for adhoc promotion are concerned, the same may not be possible due to the change in the organization. As such, the applicant has moved an M.A. for amending the cause title, impleading the newly constituted Board as the respondent.
5. Respondents have filed reply to the aforesaid M.A. They have stated that by virtue of Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Act, 2010, Slum and JJ unit of the M.C.D has been carved out and a separate a statutory body has been formed, which has not so far been notified under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and as such the order dated 19th November, 2009 is incapable of being executed. On merits also reply to the MA has been given.
6. Counsel for the applicants submitted that though a New Board has come into existence, the designation of all the officers and the employees of Slum and JJ department shall remain the same until modified; the officers and the employees shall whole the office for the same tenure at the same remuneration and on the same terms and conditions of service, as they would have held if the board had not been established and shall continue to do so until such tenure, remuneration and terms and conditions are duly altered by the Board.
7. Any service rendered by any such officer or employee before the establishment of the Board shall be deemed to be service rendered under the Board.
8. This Board may employ any such offer or other employee in the discharge of such functions under the aforesaid Act as the Board may think proper and every such officer or other employee shall discharge those functions accordingly.
9. Counsel for the applicants argued that except the aforesaid change, that has been no change at all in the service condition and as such the order has to be implemented by the authority which has taken over from the erstwhile from the previous department.
10. Counsel for the respondent submitted that primarily, for passing any such direction, the tribunal should have jurisdiction in respect of the newly constituted board which has not so far been conferred upon it. As such the tribunal cannot any further deal with this case.
11. Arguments were heard and documents perused.
12. An almost identical situation occurred in the case of North Delhi Power Ltd., v. Govt. (NCTof Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 278, wherein, The Legislative Assembly of the National Capital Territory of Delhi passed the Act on 23.11.2000 being the Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000 which came into force on 8.3.2001. An erstwhile employee of the Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking (DESU), superannuated in 1996. Eventually, the Delhi Vidyut Board became the successor of DESU whereafter, the NDPL was incorporated on 04-07-2001 and inherited the distribution undertaking on 01-07-2002. The DVB floated Time Bound Terminal Scale Scheme in July 1997 and the employee who superannuated in 1996 claimed the benefits of the scheme through a writ petition, in which the Delhi Government was a party. In that NDPL was not made a party nor was there any claim against it. A learned Single Judge allowed the petition in March, 2004, and on the basis of a statement made by the counsel for the respondents, mandamus was issued to the NDPL holding the same as the successor to DESU/DVB. A recall application filed on various grounds was allowed by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court. The Delhi Government took up the case in L.P.A. and the Division Bench held that it is only the NDPL which is responsible for payment.
13. On appeal by the NDPL, the Apex Court upheld the judgment of the High Court. In its decision, the Apex court did hold that the Division Bench ought to have remanded the matter back to the Single Judge for hearing the NDPL.
14. In the instant case, the applicant has no doubt moved an application for impleadment of the newly constituted Board but the question is whether this Tribunal enjoys the jurisdiction with regard to the said Board. For, so far no notification has been issued under the provisions of the A.T. Act, to bring the Board within the jurisdiction.
15. Thus, a writ petition filed by the applicant before the High court, on transfer, has been decided, while for the implementation of its order, the Tribunal does not enjoy the power to command the newly constituted Board which may have to implement the order. The matter may have, therefore, to be taken up only with the High Court. This is a legal compulsion.
16. The MA is, therefore, disposed of without any orders and the applicant may move the High Court for claiming the benefit arising out of the order of the Tribunal from the Board.
( Dr. Veena Chhotray ) ( Dr. K.B.S. Rajan ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/