Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Azad Kumar vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 16 July, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI M.A. No.1448/2011 T.A. No.51/2010 (Civil Suit No. 1593/2006) New Delhi, this the 16th day of July, 2011. HONBLE MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MR. SHAILENDRA PANDEY, MEMBER (A) 1. Azad Kumar S/o Shri Ram Kishan R/o K-544, Manglapuri, New Delhi-110083. 2. Mukesh Rani W/o Shri Om Singh D/o Shri Ram Singh C/o Rajpal Bharti R/o Village Kichripur Delhi-110092. 3. Kamla Devi W/o Shri Moti Lal H.No.258, Block D-3 Nand Nagri, Delhi-92. 4. Bhuvnesh Chand S/o Dinesh Chand R/o C-62, Uttri Chajjupur, Gali No.3, Shahdara, Delhi-110094. 5. Raja Kaka S/o Shri Ramji Lal R/o D-1/271, Sultanpuri, Delhi-110086. 6. Rahi Sudden S/o S. Zabardeen R/o E-Block, Gali No.15, Amar Colony, Shahdara, Delhi-110032. 7. Vimlesh Rani W/o Ved Parkash H.No.60, Nehru Gali, Maujpur, Delhi-110053. 8. Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Sohan Pal 58/139, Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051. 9. Simla Devi W/o Shri Joginder Singh H.No.D-2, Gali No.6, Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi. 10. Pushpa Rani W/o Shri Vinod Kumar D-34A, Gali No.8, Jyoti Colony, Delhi. 11. Kushal Pal S/o Shri Sohan Pal 707, Tahirpur Sarai, Delhi. 12. Nirmala W/o Raj Kumar 128, Sector 9, Pocket-4, 4th Floor, LIG Flats, Narela, Delhi. 13. Smt. Bimla W/o Shri Anand Jagdamba Colony, Johripur, Delhi-110094. ..Petitioners (By Advocate: Shri Yogesh Sharma) Versus 1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through its Commissioner, Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. 2. The Director Primary Education, MCD Kashmere Gate, Delhi-6. 3. Assistant Commissioner (Edn.), Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. 4. Assistant Education Officer (Cl.IV), Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Education Officer, Headquarter, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Shri K.M. Singh in OA, Shri R.K. Shukla in MA) ORDER (ORAL)
Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) MA 1448/2011 has been filed by the petitioners seeking restoration of TA 51/2010 as it was dismissed for default on 11.05.2011. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioners that he was busy in some other court so he could not appear when the case was listed. Counsel for the respondents has no objection. Accordingly, this MA is allowed. Order dated 11.05.2011 is recalled. TA is restored to its original number.
2. 13 Persons had filed Civil Suit No.1593/2006 seeking the following relief:-
(i) That a decree for declaration may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants as the plaintiffs are continuously working as Class-IV employee of the defendants for the last more than 8 years except for the period 12.9.2000 to 6.2.2002 and the said break was illegal being in violation of the stay order already passed by the Honble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 20.4.2000 and 8.5.2000 and accordingly were taken back on service of defendants as they had violated the stay and will be entitled to salary and allowances for the said period.
Still further a decree of permanent injunction may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants not to terminate their services.
Further a decree of declaration may also be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants that the plaintiffs will be treated as regular employee of the defendants at par with other similarly situated employee who were appointed along with them.
(iii) To pass any other appropriate order which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
They have stated that they were engaged by the respondents in the year 1988 and have been working as such since then. They had sought regularisation but the petitioners were not regularised. On the contrary, they were likely to be terminated. They had thus filed the above suit, which was transferred to this Tribunal vide order dated 30.04.2010. It has thereafter been renumbered as TA 51/2010.
Respondents have opposed this TA on the ground that all the petitioners had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 7814/2000 for the same relief seeking regularization which was dismissed on 29.01.2004, therefore, the present Civil Suit, which has been renumbered as TA 51/2010, is not maintainable. In any case petitioners have referred to the stay order granted by the Honble High Court. However, once the Writ Petition itself was dismissed, ultimately no reliance can be placed on the interim order, therefore, this TA may be dismissed.
5. We have heard both the counsel and find that these petitioners had earlier filed Writ Petitions with the relief that their service be regularised in the MCD and they be paid salary in the regular grade as paid to the employees on the regular rolls of MCD. Prayer in Writ Petition No. 7814/2000 was that letter dated 29.08.2000 terminating the services of the petitioner be quashed. Similarly petitioner in Writ Petition No.6882/2000 had prayed that the letter dated 12.07.1999 be quashed. The Honble High Court passed a detailed judgment dated 29.01.2004 after hearing all the parties and rejected the Writ Petition (page 295).
6. Since petitioners had already approached the Honble High Court for same relief and their Writ Petitions were dismissed, the petitioners could not have filed another Civil Suit for claiming the same relief of regularization. In fact while claiming the relief in the Civil Suit, petitioners have referred to the interim order passed by the Honble High Court without realizing that once the Writ Petition has finally dismissed, no reliance can be placed on the interim order as the interim order merges into the final order. No fresh cause of action had arisen in favour of petitioners. As far as their prayer against termination is concerned, it was only their apprehension. No order of termination had been passed, therefore, we would agree with the respondents that there was no cause of cause of action for the petitioners to approach the Court. Petitioners have simply challenged the wording in relief clause by seeking declaration that they be treated as regular employees at par with other employees who were appointed along with them. In view of above, the present suit would not be maintainable as the same relief was already rejected by the Honble High Court.
7. In view of above, we find no merit in this case. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(SHAILENDRA PANDEY) (MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/jyoti/