Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sudhir Kumar vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation on 8 January, 2019
1 OA No.4147/2015 and connected cases
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 4147/2015
With
O.A. No. 4168/2016
O.A. No. 4169/2016
Reserved on : 21.12.2018
Pronounced on : 08.01.2019
HON'BLE MR. V. AJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MS. ARADHANA JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
O.A. No.4147/2015
1. Sh. Rajesh Kumar,
S/o Sh. Narain Singh,
Age: 35 years
Post-Teacher
North Delhi Municipal Pratibha Vidyalaya,
Harsh Vihar,
Delhi-110034.
2. Ms. Veena,
W/o Sh. Pradeep Kumar Suman,
D/o Sh. Kanhaiya Lal,
Age: 37 years
Post-Teacher
MCD Girls School,
Sector-24, Rohini,
New Delhi-110085
3. Ms. Kavita Verma,
W/o Sh. Sarit Kumar,
D/o Sh. P.C. Nagri,
Age: 38 years
Post-Teacher
North Delhi Municipal Corporation Primary
Co-Ed School, J.J. Camp, Haider Pur,
New Delhi-110088
2 OA No.4147/2015 and connected cases
4. Ms. Ashima Malhotra
W/o Sh. Sonesh Kumar Malhotra,
D/o Sh. R.K. Bahl,
Age: 36 years
Post-Teacher
North MCD Pratibha Vidyalaya,
Saraswati Vihar, D-Block,
Delhi-110034.
5. Ms. Ritika Chadha
W/o Sh. Chandan Chadha,
D/o Sh. Raman Kumar Verma,
Age: 35 years
Post-Teacher
M.C Nigam Pratibha Vidyalaya,
Sector-8, Rohini,
New Delhi-110088
6. Ms. Babita,
W/o Sh. Raj Kumar,
D/o Sh. Ramesh Chand,
Age: 35 years
Post-Teacher
M.C. Primary School (Ist),
Sector-24, Rohini,
New Delhi-110088
7. Sh. Manish Mehra,
S/o Sh. Hari Ram Mehra,
Age: 38 years
Post-Teacher
East Delhi Municipal Corporation Primary School,
Chander Puri 1st Shift, (Chand Bagh),
New Delhi-110093.
8. Sh. Ashok Kumar,
S/o Sh. Girwar Singh,
Age: 43 years
Post-Teacher
East Delhi Municipal Corporation Primary School,
Bhagirathi Vihar,
New Delhi-110094.
9. Ms. Kamla Bharti
W/o Sh. Anil Kumar Bharti,
D/o Sh. Balbir Singh,
Age: 35 years
3 OA No.4147/2015 and connected cases
Post-Teacher
East Delhi Municipal Corporation
Primary School,
Ganesh Nagar,
New Delhi.
10. Ms. Chanchal Rani,
W/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar,
D/o Sh. Kanhaiya Lal,
Age: 35 years
Post-Teacher
East Delhi Municipal Corporation
Primary School,
Ganesh Nagar,
New Delhi.
11. Ms. Geeta Yadav,
W/o Sh. Navneet Yadav,
D/o Sh. Mohender Singh
Age: 40 years
Post-Teacher
South Delhi Municipal Corporation
Primary School,
Kapashera, New Delhi-110037. .... Applicants
(By Advocate: Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj)
Versus
1. North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Through its Commissioner North,
Civic Center, New Delhi
Delhi-110034.
2. South Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Through its Commissioner,
Civic Center, New Delhi
3. East Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Through its Commissioner,
Udyod Bhawan,
Patpar Ganj Industrial Area,
Delhi. ... Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Anupama Bansal for R-1
Shri Gyanendra Singh for R-2
Ms. Sangita Rai with Mr. Kumud Ray for R-3)
4 OA No.4147/2015 and connected cases
O. A. No. 4168/2016
Rakesh Kumar
S/o Ayodhya Singh,
Aged-42 years,
Post-Asstt. Teacher
Group - B
M.C. Primary School,
Ibrahampur-II, New Delhi. ... Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj)
Versus
1. North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Through its Commissioner,
Civic Center, New Delhi
2. South Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Through its Commissioner,
Civic Center, New Delhi. .... Respondents
(By Advocates: Shri M.S. Reen for R-1
Shri R.K. Jain for R-2)
O.A. No. 4169/2016
Sudhir Kumar
S/o Rajender Prasad Singh
Aged-42 years,
Post-Asstt. Teacher- Group B.
M.C. Primary School,
Ibrahampur-II,
New Delhi-110036. ... Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj)
Versus
1. North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Through its Commissioner,
Civic Center, New Delhi
5 OA No.4147/2015 and connected cases
2. South Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Through its Commissioner,
Civic Center, New Delhi. .... Respondents
(By Advocates: Shri M.S. Reen for R-1
Shri R.K. Jain for R-2)
ORDER
By Shri V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J) Since the facts and law involved in these OAs are identical, the same are disposed of by way of this common order.
2. It is submitted that, in pursuance of an Advertisement issued in the year 2002, the applicants applied for selection to the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) (Post Code No.013-C). A common examination was held by Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) for all categories, i.e. General, OBC, SC and ST. The results were declared and the applicants were also declared qualified in the said examination but their results were withheld and they have not been given appointments.
2. On enquiries, the applicants came to know that the persons who were declared selected and belong to the general category were given appointments but the applicants and others belonging to the reserved categories though selected, were not given appointment orders and their results were withheld. The reason for withholding the results of the candidates who were selected but belong to reserved category was that the applicants and others were not having valid caste certificates. The fathers of these persons were 6 OA No.4147/2015 and connected cases originally residents of different parts of the country and were first generation migrants to Delhi. The certificates issued to them and the castes of the applicants were not recognized as SC/ST/OBC in Delhi. Certain persons, who were identically placed like the applicants, i.e., belonging to the reserved categories though selected but were not issued appointment orders in respect of year 2002, filed CWP Nos. 5061/2011 and batch - Kunwar Pal and Others Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Another and a Learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, while disposing of the said Writ Petitions by a common judgment dated 31.05.2002 held as under:-
"In view of the aforesaid a writ of mandamus is issued to appoint such of the petitioners in the present writ petitions who are born and brought up in Delhi but the certificate issued to them is on the basis of the certificates issued to their fathers who were the migrants from other states.
The petitioners who are so appointed should also be entitled to the consequently benefits of seniority and pay scale though in view of the fact that they not been working for this period of time they shall not be entitled to the back wages for the said period of two months from today.
The writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs".
3. The LPA No.625/2002 and batch in Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Another Vs. Kunwar Pal and Others filed against the aforesaid decision of the Learned Single Judge was also dismissed by a common order dated 13.05.2005.
4. In pursuance of the aforesaid orders, the respondents finally appointed the applicants and other similarly situated persons during the year 2004.
7 OA No.4147/2015 and connected cases
5. The applicants filed the present OA seeking a direction to the respondents to grant them seniority in the post of Assistant Teacher as per their merit position in the selection with all consequential benefits.
6. Heard Shri H.D. Sharma with Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj, the learned counsel for the applicants in all the OAs and Ms. Anupma Bansal, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 in OA No. 4147/2015 and Shri Gyanendra Singh, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 in OA No. 4147/2015 and Ms. Sangita Rai with Mr. Kumud Ray, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 in OA No. 4147/2015 and Shri Manjeet Singh Reen, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 in OA Nos. 4168/2016 and OA No. 4169/2016 and Shri R.K. Jain, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 in in OA Nos. 4168/2016 and OA No. 4169/2016 and perused the pleadings on record.
7. It is not in dispute that, if the applicants are identically placed like the petitioners in CWP No.5061/2001, i.e., Kunwar Pal and Others and batch, they are also entitled for the same benefit. In fact, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while allowing the Writ Petition of Kunwar Pal and Others while directing the respondents to appoint the petitioners therein, specifically declared that they are entitled for consequential benefits of seniority and pay scale though the back wages were denied. Though the respondents ought to have granted all the benefits conferred on Kunwar Pal and Others to all 8 OA No.4147/2015 and connected cases the similarly situated persons also, i.e., including seniority and other consequential benefits, they extended the said judgment to the extent of issuing appointment orders only but the consequential benefit of granting seniority was denied on the ground that they were not parties in Kunwar Pal and Others case.
8. As a result, the applicants who are claiming to be identically placed like Kunwar Pal and Others were compelled to approach this Tribunal for the same benefits which were granted to the identically placed persons on the declaration of the principle of law. In Inder Pal Yadav Vs. Union of India, 1985 (3) SCR 837, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that those who do not come to the court need not be at a disadvantage to those who rushed to the Courts and if they are otherwise similarly situated, they are entitled to similar treatment, if not by anyone else at the hands of this court. In State of Karnataka and Others Vs. C. Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC 747, it was held that service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently (also see K.I. Shephard Vs. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 686; and K.T. Verappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, 2006 (9) SCC 406).
9. Ms. Anupma Bansal, Shri Gyanendra Singh, Ms. Sangita Rai 9 OA No.4147/2015 and connected cases with Mr. Kumud Ray, Shri Manjeet Singh Reen and Shri R.K. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the OAs, on the ground that they are hopelessly time barred. It is submitted that the cause of action arose to the applicants when they were finally appointed as Assistant Teachers (Primary)/Teachers (Primary) in the year 2004 and hence, the OAs are liable to be dismissed on the sole ground of limitation itself.
10. It is true that the OAs are filed with abnormal delay. However, as observed by the Hon'ble High Court that though the respondents were ought to have granted the seniority, pay fixation and all other consequential benefit to all the similarly placed persons, such as, applicants herein and once the issue was decided in Kunwar Pal and Others and when it is not in dispute that the applicants were also identically placed like Kunwar Pal and Others and when the delay in their appointment was solely attributable to the respondents, the delay is condonable. In these circumstances, and as this Tribunal has condoned the identical abnormal delay in certain identical matters and the respondents have already complied with the said orders, we condone the delay in these batch of OAs also.
11. Accordingly all the MAs filed for seeking condonation of delay are allowed.
12. In the circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, the OAs 10 OA No.4147/2015 and connected cases are allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the claims of the applicants who were appointed belatedly in compliance of the decision in Kunwar Pal and Others (supra), and to grant notional seniority, fixation of pay as per their position in the merit list prepared by DSSSB in the relevant year, with all consequential benefits, except back wages, as admissible to their batchmates belonging to the unreserved/general category candidates. This exercise shall be completed within 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Let a copy of this order be placed in all the connected OAs.
(ARADHANA JOHRI) (V. AJAY KUMAR) Member (A) Member (J) RKS