Shri Babu Lal Bunker v. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director & Ors.

1. The petitioner is 70% disabled in both lower limbs. He joined as a water server in the Delhi Transport Corporation[1] on 5 May 1987. By order dated 9 November 1987, his appointment was extended till 30 November 1991.

2. In 2012, the petitioner filed OA 2366/2012 before the Central Administrative Tribunal[2], seeking regularisation. By order dated 6 September 2013, the Tribunal disposed of OA 2366/2012 with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation against existing direct recruit vacancies, and prepare a “DTC” hereinafter scheme in that regard. These directions were to be complied with, within a period of three months from 6 September 2013.

3. This order of the Tribunal was challenged by the DTC before this Court by way of WP (C) 799/2014. The said writ petition was disposed of, by this Court, on 17 November 2016. The operative paragraph of the said decision reads thus:

4. The DTC regularised the petitioner’s services vide order dated 17 October 2017, but granted him the regular pay scale consequent thereto only prospectively from the said date.

5. The petitioner, thereupon, moved the Tribunal by OA 313/2013, for antedating his regularisation to 6 September 2013.

6. By judgment dated 12 December 2022, the Tribunal has directed that the regularisation would take effect from 6 December 2013, i.e. on the expiry of three months from the date of disposal of OA 2366/2012 by the Tribunal, but that the benefits available to the respondents would only be notional from that date.

7. The DTC has not chosen to challenge the order passed by the “Tribunal” hereinafter Tribunal, which is, therefore, binding on the DTC.

8. The petitioner has, however, approached this Court, challenging the said order on the ground that he was entitled to actual benefits including the regular pay scale attached to the post on which he was regularised with effect from 6 December 2013 and that the Tribunal erred in granting only notional benefits.

9. We have heard Mr. Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the DTC.

10. The only issue that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner would be entitled to actual benefits consequent on regularisation with effect from 6 September 2013. The benefits, we may note, were granted by the DTC, but with effect from 17 October

2017.

11. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we find that the actual entitlement of the petitioner would neither be from 6 September 2013 nor from 17 October 2017.

12. The order dated 6 September 2013 passed by the Tribunal was challenged before this Court in WP(C) 779/2014, which came to be disposed of by judgment dated 17 November 2016, the operative paragraph of which we have already reproduced supra. That judgment extended the time available with the DTC for regularising the services of the petitioner by a period of two months from the date of the judgment of the High Court. The said period of two months came to an end on 17 January 2017. As such, it would not be open to the petitioner to claim actual benefits of regularisation with effect from 6 December 2013. Notional benefits from that date have already been granted by the Tribunal, and the DTC has not chosen to challenge the said decision. Mr. Chatterjee submits that the DTC has complied with the decision insofar as it granted notional benefits are concerned.

13. So far as the entitlement of the petitioner to actual benefits is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner would be entitled to actual benefits consequent on regularisation with effect from 17 January 2017, when the period of two months granted by this Court by its judgment dated 17 November 2016 came to an end.