Full Text
Date of Decision: 08.12.2009
RIYASAT ALI …. Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.P. Gairola, Advocate
Through: NEMO.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
JUDGMENT
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No ANIL KUMAR, J. * C.M. No.15356/2009 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
1. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 22nd July, 2009 passed in T.A. No.611/2009 “Riyasal Ali v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi”, declining to regularize the petitioner as an A.C. Operator since 1988, as has been claimed by him.
2. The Tribunal while disposing off the petition has held that it would be open to the respondents to consult the original records 2009:DHC:5254-DB and in case it is found that the petitioner had been working as A.C. Operator under valid directions/orders of the competent authority, payment, if any, in terms of higher salary of the post of A.C. Operator may be given to the petitioner, if found entitled as per rules.
3. The petitioner was deputed as Daily Wage Khallasi in 1985 and was given the job of A.C. Operator. The petitioner claimed that he had been working as A.C. Operator on the basis of muster roll w.e.f. 28.04.1988 and the reliance was placed also on a certificate issued by an official under the caption “TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN”, which has not been relied by the Tribunal to grant regularization to the petitioner as A.C. Operator since 1988.
4. We find no fault with the findings of the Tribunal. The petitioner has already become an A.C. Operator since 1995. In the circumstances, there is no error in the order of the Tribunal, which will entail interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. ANIL KUMAR, J. DECEMBER 08, 2009 VIPIN SANGHI, J. rsk