North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Neeraj Kumar

1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The present writ petition has already been disposed of in terms of the previous order of this Court dated 9th August, 2021. The petition is now only listed for the purpose of receiving the compliance report on behalf of the Petitioner/NrDMC (hereinafter “NrDMC”) for evolving a centralized mechanism for coordination between various departments, including the legal department.

3. In this matter, on the first date of hearing i.e., 9th August 2021, ld counsel for the Respondent- Workman (hereinafter “Workman”) who had received an advance copy of this petition for the Respondent- had submitted that the entire amount which was awarded by the impugned order, had been remitted to the Workman on 23rd November, 2020. 2022:DHC:92

4. This Court had then observed that since the writ petition challenging the award of litigation expenses had already been filed by then, and litigation expenses had also been paid later by the NrDMC to the Workman, in the said writ petition, the factum of the payment to the Workman was not informed to the Court. Ms. Mukim, ld. Standing Counsel for the NrDMC, submitted that she had been given instructions to the contrary. The Zonal Engineer, NrDMC, who had then joined the proceedings, informed the Court that despite the filing of the writ petition, the amount was released from the headquarters level and they were unaware of the same as they had not been conveyed such instructions. Therefore, the writ petition had been pressed for despite payment. The said submission made on the previous date is recorded in paragraph 6 of the order dated 9th August, 2021, which is extracted as under: “6. Mr. Chaman Lal, Zonal Engineer, Petitioner/Nr.DMC has appeared and submits that he has specifically given instructions to Ms. Mukim, ld. Standing Counsel for the Petitioner, that the litigation expenses were not paid. This matter was initially passed over and he has now joined the proceedings and mentions that it is possible that at the headquarters’ level, the amount has already been released. He submits that Mr. Gyan Prakash from the Accounts department had given instructions that the litigation expenses had not been remitted to the Respondent/Workman. It is clear from the events which have transpired in this writ petition that there is no coordination between the various departments/offices of the Petitioner/Nr.DMC. This Court has repeatedly seen several cases in which amounts have been awarded to the workman, bank accounts have been attached and payments have been released. Even thereafter, writ petitions are being filed, as has happened in the present petition.

5. Under such circumstances, the Court was of the opinion that a centralised mechanism ought to be involved and the following direction was issued:

7. This Court is of the opinion that a centralized mechanism ought to be evolved by the Petitioner/Nr.DMC in order to ensure that there is coordination between the various departments, including the legal department, so that unnecessary petitions are not filed before the Court. Further, if there is a genuine challenge before the Court, it must be ensured that the petitions are filed in a timely manner.

6. Pursuant to this order, the compliance affidavit has been filed along with documents by the NrDMC, showing that an office order bearing No.N- 2011/Law/NorthDMC/2021/886 dated 18th November, 2021, has been issued by the NrDMC, setting out the Standard Operating Procedure (hereinafter “SOP”) in case of labour matters where attachment of bank accounts is involved. The said SOP which is stated to have been finalised by the NrDMC provides as under: