Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Bhupender Singh vs Delhi Transport Corporation, Govt. Of ... on 31 October, 2023
1 O.A. No.2601/2018 and a Batch
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.2601/2018
2601/2018
with
O.A. Nos.3961/2018,
No 2875/2018, 3474/201
3474/2019,
4469/2018, 3958/2018, 3959/2018, 3962/2018,
3965/2018,3023/2018, 3964/2018, 2789/2018,
3302/20 , 2246/2018,3966/2018, 4605/2018,
3302/2022,
3960/2018, 3967/2018, 4027/2018, 2484/20
2484/2023,
4375/2018, 4602/2018, 4603/2018, 4470/2018,
4604/2018, 4609/2018, 4391/2018, 4462/2018,
4466/2018 4468/2018, 56/2019, 448/2019,
4466/2018,4468/2018,
452/2019, 781/2019,
781/2019, 4467/2018, 3562/2022,
236/2020, 3558/2022 4394/2018,
4 94/2018, 4377/2018
Orders reserved on : 06.10.2023
.2023
Orders pronounced on : 31.10.2023
.2023
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
OA No.2601/2018
1. Kunwar Pal Singh, Driver, EVND, B.No.25302,
Aged about 46 years, Group 'C',
S/o Sh. Dungar Singh,
R/o F-1,
F 1, Block, East Vinod Nagar,
Delhi
Delhi-91.
2. Jitender Kumar, Driver, EVND, B.No.25197,
Aged about 41 years, Group
Group-'C',
S/o Sh. Rampal R/o H-70,
H 70, Gali No.5,
Ganga Vihar, Delhi-94.
Delhi
3. Sanjeev Kumar, Driver, NND, B.No.25193,
Aged about 44 years, Group
Group-'C',
S/o Sh. Mohinder Singh,
R/o H.No.D/1316, Jahagir Purim,
Delhi
Delhi-33.
4. Ravinder Kumar, Driver, PGD, B.No.25319,
2 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch
Aged about 37 years, Groug-'C',
S/o Sh. Jai Singh, r/o Village & P.O.
MehranaDistt. Jhajjar,Haryana-124102.
5. Kuldeep Singh, Driver, VVD, B.No.25325,
Aged about 37 years, Group-'C',
S/o Sh. Hoshiar Singh,
R/o Village Nain Sukh Pura, P.O. Rohari,
District Rewari, Haryana.
6. Veer Pal Singh, Driver, NND, B.No.2503,
Aged about 42 years, Group-'C'
S/o Sh. Ram Niwas, R/o Village & P.O.
Hewa, Baghpat, U.P.-17
7. HariKrishan, Driver, KPD, B.No.25323,
Aged about 45 years, Group-'C'
S/o Shri Kartar Singh,
R/o Village & PO AssanDistt.,
Rohtak, Haryana-21.
8. Surender Singh, Driver, HND-1, B.No.24664,
Aged about 37 years, Group-'C'
S/o Shri Mahabir Singh
R/o Village & PO Surani Tehsil Narnaul,
Distt.MahenderGarh,
Haryana-21.
9. Shankar Lal Dangi, Driver, SVD, B.No.25321,
Aged about 43 years, Group-'C'
S/o Sh. Prabhati Lal Dangi,
R/o Barka Kheraward No.13, V.P.O. Neemkathana,
Distt.Sikar Rajasthan-13.
10. Tuli Ram, Driver, NND, B.No.25165,
Aged about 41 years, Group-'C'
S/o Sh. Deshraj,
R/o H.No.B-516, Gali No.16,
Gagan Vihar, Block-AB, Rasgulle Wali Gali,
Bhoupra, Ghaziabad, U.P.-1.
3 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch
11. Mohan Lal Jatav, Driver, AND, B.No.25270,
Aged about 46 years, Group-'C'
S/o Sh. Shankar Lal Jatav,
R/o Village & P.O. Shantiveer Nagar,
(DanalPur), Tehsil Hindaunsity,
Distt.Karauli, Rajasthan-322220.
12. Suresh Kumar, Driver, SPD, B.No.25311,
Aged about 43 years, Group-'C'
S/o Sh. Lal Chand
R/o House No.785/2,
Near B.L. School Village Kalanour,
District Rohtak, Haryana.
13. Mukesh Kumar, Driver, SVD, B.No.25294,
Aged about 40 years, Group-'C'
S/o Sh. Gharsi Ram
R/o Village Bighana, P.O. Ghandala,
Tehsil Behror, District Alwar,
Rajasthan-301909.
14. Subhash Chand, Driver, HN-1, B.No.25330,
Aged about 44 years, Group-'C'
S/o Sh. Babu Lal
r/o Village Dhani Jajma,
Distt.Mahender Garh, Haryana-123023.
15. Pawan Kumar, Driver, EVND, B.No.25310,
Aged about 45 years, Group-'C'
S/o Sh. Manglu,
r/o Uttranchal Colony, Gali No.7,
Loni Border, Ghazibad. (U.P.).
16. Rajpal Singh, Driver, NND, B.No.25267,
Aged about 42 years, Group-'C'
S/o Sh. Sher Singh,
R/o Village Seena, P.O. Mawana,
Meerut (U.P.).
4 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch
17. Lakshman, Driver, NND, B.No.25291,
Aged about 42 years, Group-'C'
S/o Sh. Gopal Singh,
R/o E-55/25, Dilshad Vihar Colony,
Dilshad Garden, Shahdra, Delhi-95.
...Applicants
(By Advocate: Shri Sachin Chauhan)
VERSUS
The Chairman
Delhi Transport Corporation
I.P. Estate, New Delhi
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Ms. Aarti Mahajan Shedha with Ms. Shriya
Sharma)
OA No.3961/2018
Bhupender Singh
Age 45 years,
Driver, B.No.24216,
S/o Sahib Singh,
R/o B-145, Gali No.2,
West Vinod Nagar,
Delhi-110092.
Group-D
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Anil Mittal with Shri Kumar Shubham)
VERSUS
The Chairman
Delhi Transport Corporation
I.P. Estate, New Delhi
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mrs. Aarti Mahajan Shedha)
5 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch
OA No.2875/2018
Yogesh Kumar, Driver, B.No.24287, MD-3, Group 'C',
Aged about 38 years
S/o Hari Prasad,
R/o V & PO Chaumuhna,
District Mathura, U.P.
...Applicant
(By Advocates: Sh. Anil Mittal with Shri Shaurya Mittal
and Sh. Kumar Shubham)
VERSUS
Delhi Transport Corporation
I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-11002
(through Chairman-Cum-Managing Director)
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Shri Umesh Joshi)
OA No.3474/2019
Raju, Driver, B.No.25220, ND,
Age 42 years, Group 'C',
S/o Sh. Shri Ram,
R/o B-267, MangolPuri,
New Delhi-110083.
...Applicant
(By Advocates: Sh. Anil Mittal with Shri Shaurya Mittal
and Sh. Kumar Shubham)
VERSUS
Delhi Transport Corporation
I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-11002
(through Chairman-Cum-Managing Director)
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Ms. Aarti Mahajan Shedha with Ms. Shriya
Sharma)
6 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch
OA 4469/2018
Joginder,
Age-39 yrs.
Driver, B.No.25254,
S/o Bishan Singh,
R/o V&PO Kheri Dhamkan,
Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat,
Haryana.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. NishaMaurya)
VERSUS
The Chairman
Delhi Transport Corporation, I.P. Estate, New Delhi
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Ms. Aarti Mahajan Shedha with Ms. Shriya
Sharma)
OA 3958/2018
Balwan Singh,
Aged about 43 years
Driver No.24776
S/o Bharat Singh,
R/o V&PO Harsana Kalan, District Sonepat, Haryana
Group-D
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri R.K. Shukla)
VERSUS
The Chairman
Delhi Transport Corporation
I.P. Estate, New Delhi
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Ms. Aarti Mahajan Shedha with Ms. Shriya
Sharma)
7 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch
OA No.3959/2018
Sudhir Kumar,
Age 39 Yrs.
S/o Shri Sukhbir Singh,
R/o RZ 94, Sudhan Garden,
Old Roshan Pura,
Near Gurudwara,
Najafgarh, New Delhi-43.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Sachin Chauhan)
VERSUS
The Chairman
Delhi Transport Corporation
I.P. Estate, New Delhi
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Ms. Aarti Mahajan Shedha with Ms. Shriya
Sharma
OA No.3962/2018
Jasbir,
Age 44 Yrs
S/o Malkhan,
R/o House No.339,
MangolpurKalan,
New Delhi-85.
Group-D
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Sachin Chauhan)
VERSUS
The Chairman
Delhi Transport Corporation
I.P. Estate, New Delhi
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Ms. Aarti Mahajan Shedha with Ms. Shriya
Sharma)
8 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch
OA No.3965/2018
Manjeet Singh
Age 37 Yrs
Driver, B.No.25247,
S/o Sh. Satbir Singh,
R/o H.No.545,
Village - Katwara,
Delhi-110039
Group-D
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Sachin Chauhan)
VERSUS
The Chairman
Delhi Transport Corporation
I.P. Estate, New Delhi
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Ms. Aarti Mahajan Shedha with Ms. Shriya
Sharma)
OA No.3023/2018
Shri Bhagwan, Driver, EVND, B.No.25219, Group - 'C',
Aged about 40 years,
S/o Sh. Raj Pal,
R/o House No.154, Gali No.13,
Sarojani Park, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110001.
...Applicant
(By Advocates: Sh. Anil Mittal with Shri Shaurya Mittal
and Sh. Kumar Shubham)
VERSUS
The Chairman
Delhi Transport Corporation
I.P. Estate, New Delhi
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Ms. Aarti Mahajan Shedha with Ms. Shriya
Sharma)
9 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch
OA No.3964/2018
Manoj Singh,
Age 41 years,
Driver, B.No.23967
S/o Hari Singh
R/o 1/9213-B, Gali No.5,
West Rohtash Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi-32
Group D
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Sachin Chauhan)
VERSUS
The Chairman
Delhi Transport Corporation
I.P. Estate, New Delhi
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Shri Ayushya Kumar)
OA No.2789/2018
Suresh Chand, Driver, B.No.25346, MD-3, Group 'C'
Aged about 39 years,
S/o Sh. Jagan Singh,
R/o House No.1/5114, Gali No.4,
Balbir Nagar, 60 Foota Road, Shahadra,
Delhi-110032
...Applicant
(By Advocates: Sh. Anil Mittal with Shri Shaurya Mittal
and Sh. Kumar Shubham)
VERSUS
Delhi Transport Corporation
I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002.
(through Chairman-Cum-Managing Director)
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Rajeev Kumar)
10 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch
OA No.3302/2022
Bhagat Ram, Driver, KJD, Group 'C'
Aged about 45 years,
S/o Shri Sheo Lal,
R/o Village & Post Office RoopGarh,
District Bhiwani, Haryana-127021.
...Applicant
(By Advocates: Sh. Anil Mittal with Shri Shaurya Mittal
and Sh. Kumar Shubham)
VERSUS
Delhi Transport Corporation
I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-11002
(through Chairman-Cum-Managing Director)
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Ms. Aarti Mahajan Shedha with Ms. Shriya
Sharma)
OA No.2246/2018
Jogender Singh, Driver, B.No.23883,SPLD
Aged about 38 years, Group 'C',
S/o Shri Mani Ram,
R/o V & PO Shidipurlowa, Tehsil,
Baladurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Sh. Anil Mittal with Shri Shaurya Mittal and
Sh. Kumar Shubham)
VERSUS
Delhi Transport Corporation
I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-11002
(through Chairman-Cum-Managing Director)
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Ms. Aarti Mahajan Shedha with Ms. Shriya
Sharma)
11 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch
OA No.3966/2018
Anuj Kumar Tiwari,
Age 43 years,
Driver, B.No.25315
S/o Shri Surender Babu Tiwari,
r/o H.No.712/2, Karamganj (Champa Bagh)
Itawaha (UP).
Group-D
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Sh. Anil Mittal with Shri Shaurya Mittal and
Sh. Kumar Shubham)
VERSUS
Delhi Transport Corporation
I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-11002
(through Chairman-Cum-Managing Director)
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Ayshya Kumar)
OA No.4605/2018
Devender Kumar
Age-41 Yrs, Driver, B.No.24914
S/o VedPrakash,
R/o Village Kheder, Teli Balwal Distt.
Hisar, Haryana-125122.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Sh. Anil Mittal with Shri Shaurya Mittal and
Sh. Kumar Shubham)
VERSUS
The Chairman
Delhi Transport Corporation
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Ms. Aarti Mahajan Shedha with Ms. Shriya
Sharma
12 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch
OA No.3960/2018
Deepak Kumar, Age 45 yrs,
S/o Shri Sukhpal Singh,
R/o F-25, A/1, Rajiv Nagar,
Begampur, Delhi-86.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. Nisha Maurya)
VERSUS
The Chairman
Delhi Transport Corporation
I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Ms. Aarti Mahajan Shedha with Ms. Shriya
Sharma
OA No.3967/2018
Mohd.Riyaz
Age 40 Yrs.,
Driver, B.No.24978
S/o Shri Khaju Khan
r/o Bypass, Bisalpur Colony Tonk,
Post - Sonwa, Tonk, Rajasthan,
Group D
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Sachin Chauhan)
VERSUS
The Chairman
Delhi Transport Corporation
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Ms. Aarti Mahajan Shedha with Ms. Shriya
Sharma
13 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch
OA No.4027/2018
1. Mukesh Kumar, Driver, HND-I, B.No.24231,
aged about 38 years, Group-'C'
s/oBalbir Singh,
r/o V &P.O Kair,
New Delhi-110043.
2. ParveenShokeen, Driver, B.No.25015, Dwarka Sec-8,
aged about 35 years, Group-'C'
s/o Rajveer Singh Shokeen,
r/o House No.755, V &P.o
Dichaon Kalan,
New Delhi-110043.
3. Surinder Singh, Driver, B.No.24789, HND-I,
aged about 45 years, Group-C
s/o Surat Singh,
r/o V & P.O Malikpur,
New Delhi-110073.
4. Satish Kumar, Driver, B.No.24292, NANGLOI
DEPOT,
aged about 45years, Group-C'
s/oKartar Singh,
r/o H.No.39 Near General Chaupal,
Village Garhirandhala Delhi-110081.
5. Raghuveer Prasad Gurjar, Driver, B.No.24637, HND-
II,
aged about 43 years, Group-'C
s/o Sh. Ramji Lal Gurjar,
r/o V & P.O Chhokarwara,
Tehsil Sikrai, Dhani Teen Jag,
District Dausa, Rajasthan-303326.
14 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch
6. Rajesh Sharma, Driver, B.No.23966, HND-III,
aged about 44 years, Group-C"
s/oPyare Lal,
r/o V & P.O. Mundhelakalan,
Delhi-1100073.
7. Rajinder, Driver, B.No.24396,
aged about 38 years, Group-C'
s/o Jai Bhagwan,
r/o V & P.0. Dhansa, near veterinary Hospital
New Delhi-110073.
8. Pardhan Singh, Driver, B.No.24891,
aged about 45 years, Group-C
s/oGheesa Ram,
r/o Village MorKhedi,
Tehsil Sampla, District Rohtak,
Haryana.
9. Yogendra Ray, Driver, B.No.25300, SPD,
aged about 44 years, Group 'C,
s/o Raj Balam Ray,
r/o Village BanwariBasant,
Post Basant, District Chhapra (Saran),
Bihar-841202.
10. Shiva Kant, Driver, B.No.25316, NOD,
aged about 35 years, Group C',
s/oAsharfi Lal,
r/o Village Kishorepur P.O. Jalalpur,
District Kanpur Dehat, (Ramabai Nagar)
U.P-209312.
11. Raj Kumar Singh, Driver, B.No.24434, KJD,
aged about 43 years, Group C',
s/oBhagwat Singh,
r/o 11/1431, Gali No.2,
Shastri Nagar, By Pass Road,
Bulandshahar, U.P-203001.
15 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch
12. Netra Pal, Driver, B.No.23885, WPD,
aged about 40 years, Group 'C':
s/oVedPrakash,
r/o 27-A, JatMohalla, Badu Sarai,
New Delhi-110071.
13. Ram Avadh, Driver, B.No.24436, SVD,
aged about 45 years, Group C,
s/o Ram Naresh Mishra,
r/o House No.1766, Sector-9,
Faridabad, Haryana.
14. Ram Kumar Bhati, Driver, B.No.24236, KJD,
aged about 42 years, Group 'C'
s/o Shri Chand Bhati,
r/o House No.17, Village GopalPur,
near MCD School,
Delhi-110009.
15. Him Raj Singh, Driver, B.No.24787, DGD,
aged about 44 years, Group-C',
s/oRakam Singh,
r/o Village Khairpur, P.0. Saidpur,
District Bulandshahr, U.P.
.....Applicants
(By Advocates: Sh. Anil Mittal with Shri Shaurya Mittal
and Sh. Kumar Shubham)
Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation,
I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-110002.
(through Chairman-Cum-Managing Director)
....Respondent
(By Advocate : Shri Rajeev Kumar)
16 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch
OA 2484/2023
Sheel Kumar
Batch No.23928 P.T. No.65914
S/o Sh. Sunder Lal
R/o RZ-95, O-Block,
New RoshanPura, Najafgarh,
New Delhi-110043.
.....Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. NishaMaurya)
Versus
1. Delhi Transport Corporation,
Through its Chairman cum Managing Director
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
2. The Depot Manager,
Delhi Transport Corporation,
Mayapuri Depot, New Delhi-110064.
....Respondents
(By Advocate : Shri Rajeev Kumar)
OA 4375/2018
Kuldeep Singh
Age -41 yrs.
Driver, B.No.24694,
S/o Satya Prakash, R/o V&PO Nahari,
District Sonepat, Haryana,
.....Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. Nisha Maurya)
Versus
The Chairman,
Delhi Transport Corporation,
I.P. Estate, Delhi.
....Respondent
(By Advocates: Ms. Aarti Mahajan Shedha with Ms. Shriya
Sharma)
17 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch
O.A. No. 4602/2018
Satbir, Sriver, B.No. 24665 (Group C)
Aged about 45 years
S/o Tek Ram
R/o V& PO Kakroi
District Sonepat, Haryana
.....Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. NishaMaurya)
Versus
The Chairman,
Delhi Transport Corporation,
I.P. Estate, Delhi.
....Respondent
(By Advocates: Ms. Aarti Mahajan Shedha with Ms. Shriya
Sharma)
O.A. No. 4603/2018
Naseeb Singh, (Group-C)
Age-45 Yrs
Driver, B.No. 24720
S/o Jai Karan
R/o V& PO Mungan
District Rohtak, Haryana
.....Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. Nisha Maurya)
Versus
The Chairman,
Delhi Transport Corporation,
I.P. Estate, Delhi.
....Respondent
(By Advocates: Ms. Aarti Mahajan Shedha with Ms. Shriya
Sharma)
18 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch
O.A. No. 4470/2018
Shiv Krishan
Age-43 Yrs.
Driver, B.No. 24733
S/o Late Shri SurajBhan
R/o V&PO: Mehlana
Tehsil &District:Sonipat
[Haryana]
.....Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. Nisha Maurya)
Versus
The Chairman,
Delhi Transport Corporation,
I.P. Estate, Delhi.
....Respondent
(By Advocates: Ms. Aarti Mahajan Shedha with Ms. Shriya
Sharma)
O.A. No. 4604/2018
Ashok Kumar, (Group-C)
Age-45 Yrs.
Driver, B.No. 24361
S/o Nafe Singh
R/o House No. 1035, Pana Paposian
Narela, Delhi-40
.....Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. Nisha Maurya)
Versus
The Chairman,
Delhi Transport Corporation,
I.P. Estate, Delhi.
....Respondent
(By Advocates: Ms. Aarti Mahajan Shedha with Ms. Shriya
Sharma)
19 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch
O.A. No. 4609/2018
Dilsher, Group-C
Age-44 Yrs
Driver, B. No. 25299
S/o Lal Singh
R/o Village Mahara, Tehsil Gohana
District Sonepat, Haryana
.....Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. Nisha Maurya)
Versus
The Chairman,
Delhi Transport Corporation,
I.P. Estate, Delhi.
....Respondent
(By Advocates: Ms. Aarti Mahajan Shedha with Ms. Shriya
Sharma)
O.A. No. 4391/2018
Krishan Kumar
Age-38
Driver, B.No. 24594
S/o Balbir Singh
R/o V&PO KhandaKhurd
Tehsil Kharkhoda,
District Sonepat, Haryana
.....Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. Nisha Maurya)
Versus
The Chairman,
Delhi Transport Corporation,
I.P. Estate, Delhi.
....Respondent
(By Advocates: Ms. Aarti Mahajan Shedha with Ms. Shriya
Sharma)
20 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch
O.A. No. 4462/2018
Surender Kumar Gurjar,
Group-C
Age-41 Yrs.
Driver, B.No. 24932
S/O Surgyan Singh Gurjar
R/o Village- Sultan Pura,
P.O. Bansa
.....Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. Nisha Maurya)
Versus
The Chairman,
Delhi Transport Corporation,
I.P. Estate, Delhi.
....Respondent
(By Advocates: Ms. Aarti Mahajan Shedha with Ms. Shriya
Sharma)
O.A. No. 4466/2018
Bijender Singh
S/o Hari Singh, Group- C
Age-42 Yrs
Driver, B.No. 24550
R/o Village & P.O.
SarurpurKalan, Distt,
Baghpat, U.P. 250619
.....Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. Nisha Maurya)
Versus
The Chairman,
Delhi Transport Corporation,
I.P. Estate, Delhi.
....Respondent
(By Advocates: Ms. Aarti Mahajan Shedha with Ms. Shriya
Sharma)
21 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch
O.A. No. 4468/2018
Gurmail Singh,
Age-42 Yrs
Driver, B.No. 23961
S/o Jawala Singh
R/o H.No. 42,
Gurunanak Road
Kewal Park, Azad Pur
Delhi-33
.....Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. Nisha Maurya)
Versus
The Chairman,
Delhi Transport Corporation,
I.P. Estate, Delhi.
....Respondent
(By Advocates: Ms. Aarti Mahajan Shedha with Ms. Shriya
Sharma
O.A. No. 56/2019
Dharam Bir Singh
Age-42 Yrs
Driver, B.No. 24825
S/o. Shyam Singh
R/o VPO Sirsali, Tehsil Baraut
District Baghpat, UP
.....Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. NishaMaurya)
Versus
The Chairman,
Delhi Transport Corporation,
I.P. Estate, Delhi.
....Respondent
(By Advocate: Shri Ayushya Kumar)
22 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch
O.A. No. 448/2019
Raj Kumar, Driver, B. No. 25306,
Group-C
S/O Ram Mehar
R/o Village Tihar Malik
Sonepat (Haryana)
.....Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. Nisha Maurya)
Versus
The Chairman,
Delhi Transport Corporation,
I.P. Estate, Delhi.
....Respondent
(By Advocates: Ms. Aarti Mahajan Shedha with Ms. Shriya
Sharma)
O.A. No. 452/2019
Shri Satish Khatri, Driver B.No. 24779
Group-C
Age 46 Yrs.
S/o Shri.DayaNand,
R/o Village & PO Punjab Khor,
P.S. Khanhwala, Delhi-110081
.....Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. NishaMaurya)
Versus
The Chairman,
Delhi Transport Corporation,
I.P. Estate, Delhi.
....Respondent
(By Advocates: Ms. Aarti Mahajan Shedha with Ms. Shriya
Sharma)
23 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch
O.A. No. 781/2019
Narender,
Age-41 Yrs., Group -C
Driver, B.No. 25333
S/o Ved Pal
V&PO Kubru, Tehsil Ganaur
District Sonepat, Haryana
.....Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. Nisha Maurya)
Versus
The Chairman,
Delhi Transport Corporation,
I.P. Estate, Delhi.
....Respondent
(By Advocates: Ms. Aarti Mahajan Shedha with Ms. Shriya
Sharma)
O.A. No. 4467/2018
Sunil Kumar,
Age-38 Yrs.
Driver, B.NO. 25347
S/o Inder Singh
R/o. 936,
Village & PO. Dariya Pur,
Delhi-39.
.....Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. Nisha Maurya)
Versus
The Chairman,
Delhi Transport Corporation,
I.P. Estate, Delhi.
....Respondent
(By Advocates: Ms. Aarti Mahajan Shedha with Ms. Shriya
Sharma)
24 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch
O.A. No. 3562/2022
Jagdish Narayan Meena
Batch No. 25334, P.T. No. 67336
S/o Sh. Shyoji Ram Meena
R/o Vill.Khartala, P.O. Sainthal,
Distt. Dausa-303507
(Rajasthan)
.....Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. Nisha Maurya)
Versus
1. Delhi Transport Corporation Through its Chairman
Cum Managing Director I.P.Estate, New Delhi
2. The Depot Manager Delhi Transport Corporation
Mayapuri Depot New Delhi-110064
....Respondents
(By Advocates: Ms. Aarti Mahajan Shedha with Ms.
Shriya Sharma)
O.A. No. 236/2020
Suneel Kumar, Driver, B.No. 24888, YVD, Group- 'C'
Age 38 Years,
S/o Sh. Krishan Lal
R/o V&P.O. Munak, District Karnal,
Haryana-132051
.....Applicant
(By Advocates: Sh. Anil Mittal with Shri Shaurya Mittal
and Sh. Kumar Shubham)
Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation,
I.P.Estate,
New Delhi-110002
(Through Chairman-Cum-Managing Director)
....Respondent
(By Advocates: Ms. Aarti Mahajan Shedha with Ms. Shriya
Sharma)
25 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch
O.A. No. 3558/2022
Sushil Kumar
Driver, B.No. 24288, Group
S/o Tara Chand
R/o Vill.& P.O. Prahladpur,
Banger, Delhi-110042
....Respondent
(By Advocate: Ms. Nisha Maurya)
Versus
1. Delhi Transport Corporation, Through its Chairman Cum
Managing Director, I.P.Estate, New Delhi
2. The Depot Manager Delhi Transport Corporation Mayapuri
Depot New Delhi-110064
....Respondent
(By Advocate : Shri Ayushya Kumar)
O.A. NO. 4394/2018
Ramesh Chand Gurjar, Driver, B.No. 24889
S/o Jaman Lal Gurjar
R/o Village Arniyan Kankar, PO Kathmana
Tehsil Piplu, District Tonk,
Rajasthan
.....Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. Nisha Maurya)
Versus
The Chairman,
Delhi Transport Corporation,
I.P. Estate, Delhi.
....Respondent
(By Advocates: Ms. Aarti Mahajan Shedha with Ms. Shriya
Sharma)
26 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch
O.A. 4377/2018
Yogesh Kumar Jaga, Driver, B.No. 24495
S/o Gopal Lal Jaga
R/o village Hira Wala, PO Lalwas
CRPF Camp, Tehsil Jamwa Ramgarh
Jaipur, Rajasthan 302027
.....Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. Nisha Maurya)
Versus
The Chairman,
Delhi Transport Corporation,
I.P. Estate, Delhi.
....Respondent
(By Advocates: Ms. Aarti Mahajan Shedha with Ms.
Shriya Sharma)
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J):
We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
2. Learned counsels for the parties have admitted that the issue raised in the captioned OAs is identical, facts are similar and the grounds urged in support of the claim of the applicants are also identical or common. In this view of the matter, these matters have been heard together on the same day and were reserved for orders.
3. The learned counsels for the parties have referred to the pleadings in OA No.2601/2018, titled Kunwar Pal 27 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch Singh and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, OA No.3961/2018, titled Bhupender Singh vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, and those in OA No.3023/2018, titled Bhagwan vs. Delhi Transport Corporation.
4.(a) For clarity, the reliefs sought vide OA No.2601/2018 are reproduced as under:-
(i) Quash termination orders dated 22-11-
2013, 22-11-2013, 25-7-2014,11-12- 2014,12-11-2014, 21-7-2014, 19-12-2014, 3-12-2014,23-6-2014, 25-7-2014, 18-9- 2014, 18-7-2014. 3-12-2014, 22-11-2013, 14-7-2014 and 14-7-2014 (Annexure-A.1);
(ii) quash show cause notices dated 10-11- 2017, 10-11-2017, 9-11-2017, 10-11- 2017, 6-11-2017. 9-11-2017, 10-11-2017, 10-11-2017, 7-11-2017, 9-11-2017, 6-11- 2017, 7-11-2017, 10-11-2017,10-11-2017, 9-11-2017 and 9-11-2017 (Annexure-A.2) ;
(iii) quash final orders dated 18-1-2018, 18-1- 2018, 18-1-2018, 18-1-2018. 17-1-2018, 18-1-2018, 18-1-2018, 18-1-2018, 18-1- 2018, 18-1-2018, 18-1-2018, 18-1-2018, 18-1-2018, 18-1-2018, 18-1-2018, 18-1- 2018 and 18-1-2018 (Annexure-A.3) ;
(iv) quash Addendum dated 22-1-2018. 22-1- 2018. 22-1-2018, 22-1-2018,19-1-2018, 22-1-2018, 22/25-1-2018, 22-1-2018, 19- 1-2018,22-1-2018, 22-1-2018, 22/25-1-
2018, 22-1-2018 and 22-1-
2018(Annexure-A.4);
(v) direct the respondent to reinstate the
applicants in service with allconsequential benefits such as continuity in service, 28 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch arrears ofsalary with interest and seniority etc.
(vi) direct the respondent to forthwith assign him duty to the applicantsto whatever post they are found fit for in the same pay scale thatthey were drawing as drivers."
(b) Similarly reliefs sought vide the applicant in OA No.3961/2018 are also reproduced as under:-
(i) Quash termination order dated 18.01.2018 and earlier termination order dated 16.07.20 14 of the Applicant
(ii) Direct the respondent to reinstate the applicant in service and to assign him duty to whatever post he is found fit for in the same pay scale that he was drawing as a driver;
(iii) Direct the respondent to pay to applicant the arrears of salary with interest and all other consequential benefitssuch as seniority, continuity and promotion etc."
(c) Similarly in OA No.3023/2018, the applicant has prayed for setting aside of impugned show cause notice dated 10.11.2017, termination order dated 22.11.2013 and final order dated 18.1.2018 and Addendum dated 22.1.2018 and also for a direction to 29 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits etc.
5. With the assistance of the learned counsels for the parties, we have perused the pleadings available on record.
6. The undisputed facts, which have emerged from the pleadings and submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, are that in view of an acute shortage of Drivers being faced by the respondent - Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'DTC'), the respondent - DTC placed a requisition before the Delhi Subordinate Staff Selection Board (herein after referred to as 'DSSSB') to fill up 10000 posts of Drivers. The DSSSB sent the dossiers of 5,148/- selected candidates, including those of the applicants herein to the respondent with the recommendations for their appointments. The provisionally selected candidates, including the applicants herein, were examined by the Medical Board of the DTC. Various candidates, including the 30 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch applicants herein, were declared medically unfit for appointment as Driver on the ground of 'colour blindness' or 'Defective Eye Sight'.
7. In view of various requests/representations received from a number of candidates in 2008-2010, who were declared medically unfit by the Medical Board constituted by the respondent - DTC, conscious decision was taken by the respondent - DTC with the approval of the DTC Board to get such candidates medically re-examined from some other Medical Board. Accordingly, a request was made by the respondent - DTC to the Director, Guru Nanak Eye Centre (hereinafter referred to as 'GNEC'), Delhi vide letters dated 28.11.2008 and 23.1.2009 for medical re- examination (eye vision) of approximately 450 candidates, who were declared unfit by the DTC Medical Board for appointment to the posts of Driver under the respondent - DTC on the ground of 'colour blindness' and 'defective eye vision'. Out of 450 candidates, 430 candidates, including the applicants, were declared medically fit by the GNEC. Pursuant 31 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch thereto, barring those candidates, who did not turn up for appointment to the said post for various reasons, 413 such candidates, including the applicants, were appointed to the posts of Driver under the respondent
- DTC. Clause 13 of the offer of appointment issued to such candidates for the posts of Driver provides as under:-
"13. In case of finding any information given by him incorrect at any stage, his services are liable to be discharged from the threshold. Thus, he would not be given any service benefit for the period as the initial eligibility / requirement would not stand satisfied."
8. In the year 2011, one of such Drivers, namely, Shri Vinod Kumar was found involved in a fatal accident while driving DTC bus. On his medical examination, he was found medically unfit on account of defective vision. It came to the notice of the respondent - DTC that the DTC Medical Board has found him medically unfit for appointment as Driver. However, subsequently, he was appointed to the post of Driver keeping in view the medical fitness certificate given by the GNEC Medical Board. Accordingly, 32 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch keeping in mind the safety of commuters of the DTC buses and public at large, the Chief Medical Officer of the respondent - DTC recommended that all such Drivers, who were initially declared unfit by the DTC Medial Board but later declared fit by the GNEC Medical Board be got medically re-examined by an independent Medical Board. In view of such recommendations from the Chief Medical Officer and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the DTC Board vide Resolution No.25/2012 dated 12.4.2012 decided to conduct medical re-examination of those Drivers, including the applicants herein. The Government of NCT of Delhi vide their order dated 17.4.2013 (Annexure A to the Written submissions filed on behalf of the respondent - DTC through Ms. Aarti Mahajan Shedha, learned Advocate in OA No.2601/2018) constituted two independent Medical Boards consisting of three Doctors in each Board at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital (DDUH) and Guru Tag Bahadur Hospital (GTBH) for medical examination of such DTC Drivers, including the applicants herein.
33 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch The Medical Boards so constituted at DDUH and GTBH examined Drivers, including the applicants. Out of these 412, 119 Drivers, which includes the applicants herein, were declared medically unfit due to 'Colour Blindness'/ 'Defective Distance Vision'/ 'Defective Near Vision'/'Squint'. In view of such facts and circumstances, the CMD of the respondent - DTC wrote a letter dated 11.9.2013 (Annexure B to the written submissions filed by the respondent - DTC in OA No.2601/2018) to bring to his knowledge as to how persons found initially medically unfit could secure appointment under the respondent - DTC on being declared fit by the said GNEC and with a request to fix the responsibility of erring personnel of the GNEC leading to appointments of medically unfit personnel under the respondent - DTC.
9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondents have taken action against the persons, who got the appointment as Driver under the respondent - DTC on the basis of their being declared medically fit by the GNEC which lead to various 34 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch litigations, including OA No.2295/2013, titled Balwan Singh and others vs. DTC, OA No.2550/2013, titled Sanjay Kumar and others vs. DTC, and OA No.3355/2013, titled SatishKumar and others vs. DTC, which were decided by this Tribunal vide common Order/Judgment dated 8.10.2013 with the following reliefs:-
"27. In these cases not only an issue of livelihood of quite a large number of persons but also the question of public safety is involved. Had the applicants been disabled for the post of Driver, maybe being colour blind, on acquiring disability after joining the service, we could have no hesitation in asking the DTC to apply provisions contained in Section 47 of the Disability Act 1995 but in these Original Applications, the applicants were considered medically unfit for the post during the recruitment process. When the doctor from the DTC submitted that the colour blindness is by birth and cannot be incurred during the course of employment, Dr. Ghosh, Director, GNEC took a stand that a person may start lacking some colour perception even later also. Though, at this stage, we could dismiss the Original Applications as premature also but since the applicants had approached this Tribunal to seek an interim stay against their termination and this Tribunal entertained O.A. No.2295/2013 on 11.7.2013 when it came up for hearing afresh and as a result also, O.A.No.2550/2013 on 30.7.2013, and considering the fact that aforesaid two OAs involve the employment of large number of DTC, in the interest of justice, we dispose of the same with the following directions:
35 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch
(i) The DTC medical board or the board constituted in terms of the order dated 17.4.2013 would medically re-examine the applicants adopting the device followed by the GNEC and using its infrastructure, and also applying the Ishihara colour plates, for which the Director of the Centre will make all necessary arrangements, within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;
(ii) If the said Board (not to be interfered with by the staff of GNEC, except to the extent of making the infrastructure available) considers them fit for the post in question, they would be put back in service;
(iii) In case the Board finds them again unfit for the post, the respondent-Corporation would be at liberty to complete the process initiated by them to deal with the applicants; and
(iv) The applicants would submit their reply to show cause notices promptly and the present order would not stand in the way of the Corporation to pass final order. However, in the fitness of things the Corporation may have its own decision to pass final order after considering the report of the above medical examination."
10. The aforesaid common Order/Judgment dated 08.10.2023 of this Tribunal was challenged by the respondent - DTC before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi through Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.39/2014, titled DTC vs. Shri Sanjay Kumar and others,44/2014, titled DTC vs. Shri Balwan Singh and others and other connected cases. Vide a common 36 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch Order/Judgment dated 31.10.2014 (Annexure A-3 (Colly.) in the OA No.3961/2018) passed in the said Writ Petitions, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi set aside the aforesaid common Order/Judgment of this Tribunal dated 8.10.2013.
11. The said common Order/Judgment dated 31.10.2014 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has been the subject of challenge before the Hon'ble Apex Court through various Civil Appeals including Civil Appeal No.11154/2016, titled Surender Singh and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and vide common Order/Judgment dated 22.11.2016 (Annexure A-4 to OA No.3961/2018) in the said Civil Appeals, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"1. Leave granted.
2. In brief, the dispute revolves around the process of termination of 119 drivers employed by the respondent Delhi Transport Corporation(for short, "the DTC") on the ground that they suffered from colour-blindness. The DTC also seems to be of the view that the drivers suffered from colour-blindness before their employment and, therefore, their employment was deceitful.
37 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch
2. In the case of Suresh Chand &Anr. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and connected matters, the Delhi High Court while hearing a plea by Suresh Chand & Anr. who had failed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, came to the conclusion vide paragraph 7 that the question of application of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Ful11 Participation)Act, 1995 (for short, "the Act) Would arise where the employee suffered a disability after securing employment. We have no hesitation in observing that the High Court was right in its approach. However, in the facts of the present case, application of Section 47 of the Act is pre-mature because there is no enquiry whether the persons suffered from disability before they acquired it after their employment or they employment.
3. Subsequently, in a batch of writ petitions filed by the employees, the High Court took erroneous view and held as follows:
"This Court is also of the opinion that the decision in Suresh Chand (supra) affords no assistance to the applicants.
There, the applicants had incurred disability after employment; the Court held that the DTC's unilateral decision that such disability was pre-
employment condition could not have been taken in the manner and under the circumstances which occurred, "
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties, 38 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch
5. Shri Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted and argued rightly that the High Court decided the instant case on an erroneous assumption that the employees involved in Suresh Chand's case (supra) had incurred a disability after the employment. In fact, according to the learned counsel there had been no enquiry either in the case of the appellants or the other set of employees in Suresh Chand's Case (supra) into the question whether they had incurred the disability before or after their employment. In fact, according to the learned counsel there had been no enquiry in the case of the appellants or the other set of employees in Suresh Chand's case (supra) into the question whether they had incurred the disability before or after their employment.
6. Learned counsel for the DTC is unable to point out if there had been an enquiry with regard to set of employees in Suresh Chand's case (supra) and a finding that they had incurred a disability after their employment.
7. In this view of the matter, the judgment of the High Court suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. We, therefore, consider it appropriate in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned judgment and order and direct that in regard to all the 119 employees who were sought to be terminated, no action for termination shall be taken except in accordance with law, i.e., after an enquiry in which the employees would have an opportunity to show cause that the disability was acquired after their employment.
39 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch
8. We make it clear that the DTC shall not be restricted to the usual enquiry but would be entitled to obtain a medical opinion as to whether the employees acquired the disability before or after their employment. We are of this view because the disability in question is a serious disability for a driver of a bus in which many people travel. Such a disability might also endanger the life of other people who are on the road. We also consider it appropriate to direct that there shall be an enquiry through medical board whether the employee acquires disability after his employment and if that enquiry is against the employee then, whether the employee is responsible for using deceitful means suppressing his disability for seeking employment.
9. We further make it clear that this shall not prevent the DTC from terminating the services of the drivers on the ground that they are found to be colour-blind. However, the employees will be entitled for protection of their services under the Act if eligible in law. The appellants shall be treated to have been reinstated for the purposes of the enquiry and shall be entitled to claim consequential benefits at the time of final decision of the enquiry, which shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
10. The civil appeals are allowed with the afore-mentioned observations and directions."
40 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch
12. It is an admitted fact that all the parties before us that the applicants are included in 119 Drivers referred to by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Order/Judgment dated 22.11.2016 in the case of Surender Singh (supra). In compliance of directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surender Singh (supra), the respondent - DTC requested the Secretary, Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of NCT of Delhi to constitute a special Medical Board vide their letter dated 20.4.2017 (Annexure -C to the written submissions filed on behalf of the respondent in OA 2601/2018) to get all 119 Drivers referred to by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Order/Judgment dated 22.11.2016 be medically examined to ascertain as to whether such Drivers were medically unfit due to 'colour blindness'/other vision disability like 'Defective Eye Vision'/'Defective Near Vision' or 'Squint' at the time of appointment under the respondent - DTC or acquired such disability subsequently, i.e., to access whether such Drivers acquired 'colour blindness'/'Defective Eye Vision'/'Defective Near 41 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch Vision' or 'Squint' before or after their appointments under the respondent - DTC.
13. In response to such communication of the DTC, the Dean of Maulana Azad Medical College ('MZMC' in short), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, informed vide their letter dated 17.5.2017 (Annexure D to the Written Submissions filed on behalf of the respondent in OA No.2610/2018) that a Special Medical Board was constituted and medical examination was scheduled on May 24, 25, 26, 29 and 30, 2017 to start from 11.30 A.M. at investigation lab, GNEC as per the details given under the said letter. On being informed about medical examination between 24th to 30th May 2017, only 106 persons, out of 119 reported for medical examination and were re-examined by the Special Medial Board at MAMC. The Dean, MAMC vide their letter 9.6.2017 (Annexure I to the Written Submissions filed by the respondent in OA No.2601/2018) reported that out of 119 Drivers, 106 Drivers appeared before the said Board for their evaluation. The said Board had recommended that 16, 42 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch out of 106 Drivers required additional evaluation, which was scheduled on 5.6.2017. However, none of these Drivers reported for re-evaluation before the said Board on 5.6.2017 and in such communication dated 9.6.2017, they have enclosed also the individual assessment of all the candidates in original with the opinion of the Board with respect to the timing of acquisition of these defects, which was also summarized in the said letter dated 9.6.2017, which reads as under:-
"Colour Blindness:- The opinion of the Board was that Colour Blindness was present prior to appointment as drivers in DTC and not acquired.
Other visual disability like DDV/DNV/Squint:- As per the opinion of the Board the defects can change with the passage of time and therefore, it may be difficult to opine as to whether it was present prior to appointment or acquired later. The Board has only opined on the current status of the other visual disabilities of the drivers.
The reports are enclosed in original for necessary action."
Alleging willful defiance of the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid Order/Judgment dated 43 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch 22.11.2016, Contempt Petition (C) Nos.1711-1712 of 2017 in Civil Appeal Nos.11173-11174/2016, titled Balwan Singh and others vs. Sandeep Kumar, IAS and others, filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court, however, the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the main decision before the appropriate forum in accordance with law vide Order/Judgment dated 16.4.2018 (Annexure A/5 (Colly.) in OA No.3961/2018). Thus, the present OAs.
14. Mr. Anil Mittal, learned counsel appearing in support of the claim of the applicant(s) in some of the OAs, has advanced the following arguments:-
(i) Though the applicants were denied appointments initially on account of being medically unfit as declared by the Doctors/Medical Board of the respondent - DTC, however, subsequently they were appointed on their medical fitness given by the GNEC, a premier hospital, and thus, if at all, the applicants have been declared medically unfit 44 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch by the medical Board constituted in compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Order/Judgment dated 22.11.2016, the respondents are estopped from terminating the services of the applicants as the applicants might have acquired the unfitness during the employment of the respondent;
(ii) The applicants are in view of the fact that the applicants have become entitled for the benefits flowing from the policy decision of the respondents vide Circular dated 20.3.2006 (Annexure A/5 to OA No.2601/2018), which provides that wherein a direction has been given by the respondent to henceforth comply the provisions of Section 47 of the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter called as 'the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995');
(iii) That as it has never been the case of the respondents that the applicants have been responsible for using the deceitful means or suppressing the disability for 45 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch seeking employment. The respondents are estopped from taking any coercive action against the applicants as the applicants might have acquired the medical disability during the course of employment under the respondents. In support of his such arguments, Mr. Mittal, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the Division Bench decision dated 19.3.1999 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CW No.3072/1999, titled Surinder Sharma vs. Union of India, reported in 2000 (1) SLR 387. In this regard, he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in A. Sudha vs. University of Mysore and another, reported in 1987 SC 2305. Further on the same aspect, he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashok Chand Singhvi vs. University of Jodhpur and others, reported in AIR 1989 SC 823.
(iv) He has also referred to notification dated 16.3.2020 of Ministry of Road Transport and Highways vide G.S.R. 176(E) to submit that even otherwise, the medical disability for which the applicants' services have been dispensed with is no more medical 46 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch disability in view of amendment in the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 vide a Gazette Notification dated 16.3.2020 under reference.
15. Mr. Sachin Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the applicants in OA No.3023/2018 and a few other OAs has supported and adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Mittal, learned advocate and precisely recorded hereinabove. In addition to that, Mr. Chauhan has referred to examination report of the Doctor(s) of the same Medical Board, which was constituted in compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Order/Judgment dated 22.11.2016 (supra) and in such report the applicant/applicants was/were treated as medically fit. Mr. Chauhan has further argued that the Doctors have not taken into consideration the policy decision of the respondent - DTC. In this regard, he has placed on record a communication of DTC vide No.PLD-III/Medical Standards/2020/4924 dated 4.12.2020 on the subject "Medical Standards for the candidates selected for appointment in DTC/granting extension/leave in service for the existing employees". Mr. Chauhan has argued that had the Medical Board considered such circular/policy 47 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch decision of the respondent - DTC, the Medical Board would not have come to the conclusion/opinion which has led to confirmation of termination of services of the applicants.
16. Other remaining learned counsels appearing for the applicants have adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Mittal and Mr. Chauhan, learned advocates.
17. While going through the pleadings available on record, we have found that written submissions has been filed by Shri Rakshit Rautela and Shri Akash Verma, learned advocates for the applicants in OA No.3961/2018. We have gone through the same as well. In the said written submissions, precisely recording the factual matrix as noted hereinabove, it has been urged that the respondents should have shifted the applicants to some other posts with the same pay scale and other service benefits keeping in view the provisions of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995. It is further urged that the respondents did not comply with the order/judgment 48 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch dated 22.11.2016 of the Hon'ble Apex Court under reference. The applicants were declared medically fit for post of Driver by the Medical Board of GNEC to whom they were referred by the respondent - DTC itself and GNEC used advance technology to perform clinical examination in comparison to DTC Medical Board. It is also urged that GNEC is a renowned clinic in the field of Ophthalmology and as the applicants were referred to GNEC by the respondent - DTC, hence, the DTC is bound by the decision of the GNEC. The Special Medical Board, which was constituted in compliance of the Order/Judgment dated 22.11.2016 of the Hon'ble Apex Court is in contradictions of principles of natural justice. This is in view of the fact that the same Doctors had been the part of the Medical Board constituted on 17.4.2013 and issuance of letter to candidates for further evaluation at RP Centre AIIMS without any proper reason is against Wednesbury's principle of reasonableness, as the medical examination particularly available at page No.104A of the OA 3961/2018 that the Vision 49 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch Standard of the applicant was acceptable. By referring to certain facts of the medical examination of the applicants by the Medical Board, the final opinion of the Medical Board constituted in compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Order/Judgment dated 22.11.2016 have also been referred to.
18. On the other hand, Ms. Aarti Mahajan Shedha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents by referring to the pleadings available on record and written submissions filed in OA No.2601/2018, has argued that in deference to the directions given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Order/Judgment dated 22.11.2016 under reference, a Special Medical Board was constituted by the competent authority to assess whether 119 Drivers including the applicants herein had acquired the 'colour blindness', 'DDV/DNV' or 'Squint' before or after their employment under the DTC. Out of them, only 106 participated for medical examination and were re- examined by the Special Medical Board at MAMC. The Dean of the said MAMC vide their communication 50 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch dated 9.6.2017 reported to the DTC that 106 Drivers reported for medical re-examination before the duly constituted Medical Board. The individual assessment of all the candidates was also enclosed in original. The said Special medical Board reported that 78 Drivers suffered from colour vision defect/colour blindness, whereas 13 had DDV/DNV. The Medicacl Board referred 15 Drivers to R.P. Centre, AIIMS for further evaluation. However they did not turn up for the same. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that once all the facts, including the medical records of the applicants were considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court while passing the Order/Judgment dated 22.11.2016, it was mandated upon the respondents to take further decision keeping in view the report of the said Special Medical Board constituted in compliance of such directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and not on the basis of previous medical report(s). The appointments of the applicants were likely to endanger the life of not only the commuters of the DTC buses but also the public at 51 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch large on road. She has further emphasized that even after the medical report of the Special Medical Board subsequent to the Order/Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 22.11.2016, the applicants were issued show cause notice, enclosing therewith all the documents. The applicants submitted their replies to the same and the applicants were also afforded personal hearing and only after considering all the relevant facts on record, the impugned orders were passed confirming the termination of their services and thus, the action and orders of the respondents are just fair and after full compliance of the principles of natural justice. She has further argued that the respondents were required to go by the opinion of the Special Medical Board and not by isolated clinical reports of Doctors during assessment of their medical fitness. Learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance on the Order/Judgment dated 19.12.2022 in OA No.779/2019, titled Jagpal Rana vs. Chairman, DTC. She has submitted that in 52 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch similar facts and circumstances, this Tribunal has dismissed the said OA.
19. Mr. Ayushya Kumar, learned counsel, and other learned counsels appearing for the respondents have also supported and adopted the arguments advanced by Ms. Aarti Mahajan Shedha, learned counsel for the respondents.
20. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. We have also gone through the judgments/documents referred to by the learned counsels for the parties carefully.
21. Admittedly, the Gazette Notification dated 16.3.2020 providing certain amendments in the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, has come into force and has become effective from the date of their final publication in the official gazette, i.e., in the month of March 2020 and accordingly, the same is not of any help to the applicants.
22. So far as reliance made by the learned counsels for the applicants on the Circular dated 20.3.2006 is 53 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch concerned, admittedly, the same relates to the compliance of the provisions of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995. Section 47 of the Act ibid reads as under:-
"No establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank an employee who acquires a disability during his service.
Provided that, if an employee, after acquiring the disability is not suited for the post he was holding could e shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits"
Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier."
23. There is nothing on record to denote that the applicants have acquired the medical disability during their employment under the respondent(s). Accordingly, they are not found to be entitled for the provisions of Section 47 of the Act, ibid, accordingly. The applicants are also not found entitled to be the beneficiaries of the Circular dated 20.3.2006 under reference.
54 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch
24. So far the communication of the respondents dated 4.12.2020 with regard to the medical standards for the candidates selected for appointment in DTC is concerned, the same is also of subsequent date, i.e., 4.12.2020, much after the selection, appointment, termination, medical assessment and confirmation of the termination in respect of the applicants. Accordingly, the said communication dated 4.12.2020 is also not found of any help to the applicants.
25. We have also gone through the Order/Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Surinder Sharma (supra). In the said case, the petitioner was terminated from service purported to be under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. When the petitioner made representation seeking reason for termination of his services and he want personally to the office of the respondents therein, he was informed that as he fell short of one centimeter in height, he was terminated. The petitioner explained to the respondents that competent authority, however, passed him in official test with 55 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch assessment that 'under height but fit', and despite this remarks, he was selected by the competent authority and thereafter sent for training. In this view of the matter, their Lordships of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi have ruled that the respondents were estopped from raising the issue of short in height later. In the present cases, at no point of time, the competent authority under the respondents had passed order(s) for appointments of the applicants and/or continuation of service despite knowing about the applicants' disability. Accordingly, the Order/Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Surinder Sharma (supra) does not support the claim of the applicants.
26. In the case of A. Sudha (supra), the matter involving the question to the eligibility of the appellant for admission in the First Year of MBBS course in the Mysore University. In that case, it has been the case of the appellant that she joined the Institute in February 1986. However, vide Memorandum dated 19.9.1986, the second respondent therein had intimated the 56 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch appellant that her admission has not been approved by the University of Mysore by recording that 'she has secured 54% in B.Sc., but secured 43% in PUC. Hence she is not eligible. Her admission may be cancelled." Appellant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The learned Single Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka rejected the writ petition of the appellant on the ground that the appellant not having obtained 50% marks in the aggregate in Physics, Chemistry and Biology in the PUC examination, was not eligible for admission to the MBBS course. The Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka also took the same view and dismissed the appeal. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the facts and circumstances of the case found that it was the fault of the Principal of the Institute and the Hon'ble Apex Court took the view not justified in penalizing the appellant by not allowing her to continue her studies in the MBBS Course, first of which she has completed during the pendency of the litigation. The facts of the cases in hand are entirely 57 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch different and accordingly, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in A. Sudha (supra) also does not support of the claim of the applicants.
27. In the case of Ashok Chand Singhvi (supra), it has been recorded in para 16 that when the appellant made the application beyond the last date, his application should not have been entertained. But the application was entertained, presumably on the basis of the resolution of the Syndicate. The appellant also brought to the notice of the Dean the said resolution and also the implementation of the same by admitting several teacher-candidates. The Hon'ble Apex Court noted that both the Dean and Vice Chancellor considered the objection raised by the officer- in-Charge, admissions and thereafter direction for admitting the appellant was made. In this background, the relief was granted to the appellant by the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, as precisely recorded hereinabove, at the threshold, the applicants were not found medically fit by the Doctors of the respondents. Though they got the appointments on the basis of medical fitness issued by the GNEC, however, when in a bonfide facts and circumstances, the applicants were sent for re-medical 58 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch examination, they have not been found medically fit by the competent Medical Board. Accordingly, the said judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court is also not found to be of any help to the applicants herein.
28. We may note that emphasis has been given by the learned counsels appearing for the applicants on the medical fitness given by the GNEC which led to the appointments of the applicants and their continuation in service for some time, however, equally admitted is the fact that that at the threshold, the applicants were not found medically fit by the Doctors of the respondent - DTC. Even not challenged the re- examination by the Medical Board, particularly, the Special Medical Board constituted by the competent authority in compliance of the Order/Judgment dated 22.11.2016, the applicant have not been fount fit and a few of them, have not chosen to participate for their further evaluation. Moreover, reports/opinion/ conclusion given by the Medical Board constituted in compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court vide Order/ Judgment dated 22.11.2016 is not under challenge.
59 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch This Tribunal, not being a medical expert, is not expected to go into the correctness of the reports furnished by the Medical Board on the basis of clinical report or any subsequent policy of the respondent(s). We may further note that principles of estoppel shall not be applicable against the law.
29. In the said case of Jagpal Rana (supra), the applicant was similarly placed, as the applicants in the instant cases. He has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(i) Quash termination order dated
18.01.2018;
(ii) Direct the respondent to reinstate the
applicant in service and to assign him duty to whatever post he is found fit for in the same pay scale that the was drawing as driver.
(iii) Direct the respondent to pay to applicant the arrears of salary with interest and all other consequential benefits such as seniority, continuity and promotion etc." In the said case of Jagpal Rana (supra), the coordinate Division Bench of this Tribunal in paras 17 to 19 ruled as under:-
60 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch "17. The short question raised before this Tribunal is whether the termination order is sustainable in the eyes of law or not.
18. The main argument of the applicant was that he was not given any opportunity to defend his case. It is seen that in compliance of directions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, the applicant was issued a show cause notice dated 11.11.2017 giving opportunity to furnish his reply within 10 days with documentary evidence and in case the same was not found satisfactory, appropriate action, including termination of services as DTC Driver, would be taken. In response, the applicant gave detailed reply dated 04.12.2017, which was duly considered. He was also called for personal hearing on 26.12.2017, on which date he appeared and submitted that he does not accept the report of the Medical Board since there is a difference in medical reports. The same was duly considered by the Disciplinary Authority and found without merit. Therefore, the termination order in question is passed.
This entire exercise of issuing show cause notice and giving opportunity to the applicant to file response thereto, was on the basis of the directions issued by the Hon‟bleSupreme Court, as mentioned above. The issue has already been dealt with in detail before this Tribunal, the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi and finally before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, meaning thereby the action of the respondents is justified and no fault can be found in the impugned termination order.
19. In view of the aforesaid, we find that reasonable opportunity was given to the applicant by the respondents to defend 61 OA No2601/2018 and a Batch himself, which he failed to do so, hence, there are no merits in the present OA. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs."
30. We don't find any reason to take a different view in the present OAs also.
31. In view of the aforesaid, we find the aforesaid OAs devoid of any merit and accordingly, the aforesaid OAs deserve to be dismissed. We order accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
32. Associated MA(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of accordingly.
33. Registry is directed to place a copy of this Order in each and every connected OAs.
(Sanjeeva Kumar) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/ravi/