SHRI R.C. SHARMA & ORS. v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

1. No one appears for the petitioners although it is 3.15 PM. I have therefore, heard the counsel for respondent no.4 and am proceeding to dispose of the writ petition.

2. This writ petition is filed by 21 petitioners who are employees of the respondent no.1/Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Petitioners were appointed on different posts of Readers, Ahlmads, Process Servers etc with the Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals. They were appointed against ex-cadre posts. Originally, appointments to the Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals were of retired 2013:DHC:2654 Judges or Judges on deputation and on account of delay caused in the appointments, respondent no.1 vide its notifications dated 8.8.1997 decided to declare the 3 posts of Industrial Tribunals and 10 posts of Labour Courts in the Labour Department as Cadre posts of Delhi Higher Judicial Services. The respondent no.4 ie Office of District and Sessions Judge thereafter issued circulars for appointment of Readers, Ahlmads, Process Servers etc. in the Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunal as Cadre posts. Petitioners approached this Court to stay the action of appointment of employees to Labour Courts and Industrial Courts as Cadre posts of respondent no.4.

3. On 1.7.1998, a learned Single Judge of this Court passed ex parte interim orders for not giving effect to the orders dated 18.6.1998 and 25.6.1998 in respect of posting of staff of District Judge in the Labour Courts and the Industrial Tribunals. This ex parte interim order was vacated by another learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 12.8.1998 which noted that service conditions of the petitioners remained unaffected and nor were their posts or salaries in the service of the respondent no.1 affected by the impugned orders dated 18.6.1998 and 25.6.1998. Accordingly, interim orders were vacated.

4. On 11.3.2002, CM No. 8913/1998 filed by the petitioners was disposed of and it was noted that respondent nos. 1 and 2 would be entitled to utilize the services of the petitioners because they were employees of respondent nos. 1 and 2. The salaries and scales of the petitioners were protected. Court observed that question of absorption of the petitioners with the respondent nos. 3 and 4 i.e Office of the District and Sessions Judge, Delhi or the Delhi High Court would only be considered at the time of disposal of the writ petition.

5. The aforesaid facts show that the only issue requiring adjudication in this writ petition is en-cadrement of the petitioners who are employees of the respondent no.1 with the respondent no.4. In my opinion, once specific cadre is created and persons appointed to these different posts of Readers, Ahlmads, Process Servers etc., in the Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals, the petitioners cannot claim to be absorbed and appointed in the new cadre posts which are created for the Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals. There is no law entitling petitioner to change their employer from respondent no.1 to respondent no.4 There is no bar in law for the respondent no.4 to create specific cadre posts for the Labour Courts and the Industrial Tribunals, and no legal bar in the petition is pleaded as to why there cannot be a cadre created by the respondent no.4 for the employees of the Labour Courts and the Industrial Tribunals considering that service conditions such as salaries, promotion, scales of pay etc of the petitioners are otherwise protected as employees of the respondent no.1, and they can be in fact absorbed in the Delhi Administration Supporting Services (DASS) which is a combined service for all appointments made under respondent no.1.

6. Accordingly, it is for the respondent no.1 to utilize the services of the petitioners whose employees they are and there cannot be an issue raised by the petitioners for preventing creation of the cadre posts of the respondent no.4 for appointment of staff to the Labour Courts and the Industrial Tribunals.

7. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. MAY 21, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib