Babban Chaudhary vs M/O Commerce on 19 July, 2019
14. As is clear from the facts of this case, as stated by the
applicants themselves, that they had been appointed as
casual labourers on different dates starting from April 1993 to
October 1993 and also uptil January 1996. Hence, as none
of them had completed one year period as casual labourers
when the Scheme for regularization dated 10.9.1993 came
into force, none of them could be given the benefit under the
said Scheme and their regularization occurred in 2005. As a
result, all the applicants of this OA were not covered under
the Scheme of 10.9.1993 and they were in fact regularised
subsequently. They are not entitled to coverage under the old
Pension Scheme, as has been detailed in the order cited above
and most recently, in the Order of the Hon‟ble Delhi High
Court dated 31.1.2019 in WP(C) No.984/2019 in the case of
Para Medical Technical Staff Welfare Association of MCD
and another vs. NDMC. As is clear from the dates of
appointment given to the applicants in this OA, their dates of
appointments does not come within the time frame for those
who are considered under the said Scheme. Hence, we do not
find any merit in their contentions made in this OA. The
detail order in this regard, which has been passed by the
respondents vide OM No.A-11020/1/2015/A-V dated
9.8.2016, is in keeping with the said 1993 Scheme as on
10.9.1993. Reason being that on 10.9.1993, none of the
applicants fulfills the requirement of having been engaged for
19
a period of at least 240 days in a year or 206 days in the case
of offices observing 5 days week in a year. As such the
conclusion drawn by the respondents in their impugned order
does not suffer from any illegality and infirmity.