Full Text
Translation output
rF
-r
IN THE HIGH COURT w.P.(c) 8101/2011
DELHI JAL BOARD
Through:
OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI..... Petitioner
Mr.Ankul Raj and Mr.Sumeet
Pushkama, Advocates a
VETSUS
JEET SINGH AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.S.K.Anand, Adv for R-l.
Mr.Arun Birbal, Adv for DDA.
Mr.Gaurang Kanth, Adv for MCD.
IN THE HIGH COURT w.P.(c) 8101/2011
DELHI JAL BOARD
Through:
OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI..... Petitioner
Mr.Ankul Raj and Mr.Sumeet
Pushkama, Advocates a
VETSUS
JEET SINGH AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.S.K.Anand, Adv for R-l.
Mr.Arun Birbal, Adv for DDA.
Mr.Gaurang Kanth, Adv for MCD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA o/o 11.08.2011
In view of the order passed by this Court in !VP(C)
No.5369/2011, nothing subsists to be adjudicated in this writ petition and, accordingly, the same stands disposed of. fuzn
CHIEF JUSTICE
-4 l
-L - '1t c--
SANJIV KTIANNA, J a
AUGUST 1L, 20Lllsv
2011:DHC:18044-DB
?
'F IN TI{E HIGI{ COUTTT OF' DELtr{I AT' NE,W DEI.Iil
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA o/o 11.08.2011
In view of the order passed by this Court in !VP(C)
No.5369/2011, nothing subsists to be adjudicated in this writ petition and, accordingly, the same stands disposed of. fuzn
CHIEF JUSTICE
-4 l
-L - '1t c--
SANJIV KTIANNA, J a
AUGUST 1L, 20Lllsv
2011:DHC:18044-DB
?
'F IN TI{E HIGI{ COUTTT OF' DELtr{I AT' NE,W DEI.Iil
+ w.P.(c) s369t20rl
MCD ..... Petitioner
Tbrough: Mr.GaurangI(anth, Advocate
VETSUS
JEET SINGH AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.S.K.Anand, Adv for R-1.
Mr.Ankul Raj and Mr.Sumeet
Pushkama Adv. for R-2/DJB.
Mr.Arun Birbal, Adv for DDA.
COR,AM:
I{ON'BI-,E TIIE CI{IEF JUSTICE.T{ON'EI,E MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KIIANNA
ORDER. oh 11.08.2011
Questioning the legal validity of the order dated 5.7.2010 passed by
: the Central.Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short
'the tribunal') in T.A. No.102612009, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has prefened this rvrit petition under Article 226 and227 of the Constitution of India.
The claim put forth by the respondent and the stand assefted by the lo
Municipal Corporation of Delhi before the tribunal need not be refered to at ali as the factual matrix is extremely peculiar and, in fact, created a situation w,hich could not have been solved without the cooperation of the authorities.
Keeping the sarne in view, this courl on29.7.2011 had passed the following order.
1' Heard A{r.Gaurang l(anth, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Jitender Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Mr.Arun
Birbal, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
'
Let the matter be listed on llth August, 2OTI.
On that date the Director (personnel) of the
MCD and
' the Chief Engineer. (Wor-lcCharge
(Estt.)) of the Delhi Development Authority shall remain personally present at 2:I5 p.m. The respondent No.l Jeet Singh shall also remain personally present.
The petitioner is directed to effect sei-vice dasti on the respondent No.l indicating the order passed by this Court today.
A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.', In pursuance of the above order, the
Kumar (Director, Work-Charge) of DDA, Commissioner) of Delhi Jal Board
Cornrrissioner) of MCD are present. The authorities, narnely, Mr. Sushil
Mr.Prakash Chand (Assistant and Mr.A.I(.Singh (Deputy respondent Jeet Singh is also
))
. present.
In the .course of hearing, learned counsel'for the parties, after obtaining instructions fiom their respective authorities and 1\&.S.I(.Anancl, learned counsel for the respondent No.l fairly agreed that the respondent
No.1 shall only be entitled to pension keeping in view the qualiffing period of service at 20 years and not beyond that.
It is worth noting that the respondent No.1 has rendered service for 14 years in the Delhi Development Authority. As agreed to, the contribution of the DDA in respect of the pension shall be for the said period and the same
. shall be rernitted to Delhi Jal Board if not already done. As far as Delhi Jal
Board is concerned, it shall bear the burden for six years. The pay scale whatever drawn by him on expiry of 20 years corlllnencing 1979 shall be computed. As the respondent No.l has been superamuated, the last employer', namely, Delhi Jal Board shall remit the anears of pension by way of a bank draft in favour of the respondent No.l within two rnonths and, . thereafter, extend the benefit of pension every month.
Before parting with the case, we must record our appreciation for the cooperation extended by the authorities of Delhi Developrnent Authority and the Delhi Jal Board and Mr.Pushkarna, Mr.Arun Birbal, Mr.Ankul Raj appearing for the said authorities because in a case of this nature when the
)z_ petitioner submitted that he had been rnaking endeavours to join the respondent No.1 and Delhi Jal Board has put forth the stance that he did not come to join. We rnust state without any reservation that the authorities lealized the plight of the employee and ignored the fault or the negligence.
Be that as'it ffi&y, the affirmative attitude shown by all the concerned is appreciated.
The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms and, accordingly, the order passed by the tribunal is set aside. No order as to costs. s//h
CIIIEF J{JSTICE so0/- sA.NJrV KFr.A.I{NA, J
AUGUST 1"L,20LL/sv
MCD ..... Petitioner
Tbrough: Mr.GaurangI(anth, Advocate
VETSUS
JEET SINGH AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.S.K.Anand, Adv for R-1.
Mr.Ankul Raj and Mr.Sumeet
Pushkama Adv. for R-2/DJB.
Mr.Arun Birbal, Adv for DDA.
COR,AM:
I{ON'BI-,E TIIE CI{IEF JUSTICE.T{ON'EI,E MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KIIANNA
ORDER. oh 11.08.2011
Questioning the legal validity of the order dated 5.7.2010 passed by
: the Central.Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short
'the tribunal') in T.A. No.102612009, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has prefened this rvrit petition under Article 226 and227 of the Constitution of India.
The claim put forth by the respondent and the stand assefted by the lo
Municipal Corporation of Delhi before the tribunal need not be refered to at ali as the factual matrix is extremely peculiar and, in fact, created a situation w,hich could not have been solved without the cooperation of the authorities.
Keeping the sarne in view, this courl on29.7.2011 had passed the following order.
1' Heard A{r.Gaurang l(anth, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Jitender Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Mr.Arun
Birbal, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
'
Let the matter be listed on llth August, 2OTI.
On that date the Director (personnel) of the
MCD and
' the Chief Engineer. (Wor-lcCharge
(Estt.)) of the Delhi Development Authority shall remain personally present at 2:I5 p.m. The respondent No.l Jeet Singh shall also remain personally present.
The petitioner is directed to effect sei-vice dasti on the respondent No.l indicating the order passed by this Court today.
A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.', In pursuance of the above order, the
Kumar (Director, Work-Charge) of DDA, Commissioner) of Delhi Jal Board
Cornrrissioner) of MCD are present. The authorities, narnely, Mr. Sushil
Mr.Prakash Chand (Assistant and Mr.A.I(.Singh (Deputy respondent Jeet Singh is also
))
. present.
In the .course of hearing, learned counsel'for the parties, after obtaining instructions fiom their respective authorities and 1\&.S.I(.Anancl, learned counsel for the respondent No.l fairly agreed that the respondent
No.1 shall only be entitled to pension keeping in view the qualiffing period of service at 20 years and not beyond that.
It is worth noting that the respondent No.1 has rendered service for 14 years in the Delhi Development Authority. As agreed to, the contribution of the DDA in respect of the pension shall be for the said period and the same
. shall be rernitted to Delhi Jal Board if not already done. As far as Delhi Jal
Board is concerned, it shall bear the burden for six years. The pay scale whatever drawn by him on expiry of 20 years corlllnencing 1979 shall be computed. As the respondent No.l has been superamuated, the last employer', namely, Delhi Jal Board shall remit the anears of pension by way of a bank draft in favour of the respondent No.l within two rnonths and, . thereafter, extend the benefit of pension every month.
Before parting with the case, we must record our appreciation for the cooperation extended by the authorities of Delhi Developrnent Authority and the Delhi Jal Board and Mr.Pushkarna, Mr.Arun Birbal, Mr.Ankul Raj appearing for the said authorities because in a case of this nature when the
)z_ petitioner submitted that he had been rnaking endeavours to join the respondent No.1 and Delhi Jal Board has put forth the stance that he did not come to join. We rnust state without any reservation that the authorities lealized the plight of the employee and ignored the fault or the negligence.
Be that as'it ffi&y, the affirmative attitude shown by all the concerned is appreciated.
The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms and, accordingly, the order passed by the tribunal is set aside. No order as to costs. s//h
CIIIEF J{JSTICE so0/- sA.NJrV KFr.A.I{NA, J
AUGUST 1"L,20LL/sv
JUDGMENT