Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : None For the Respondents : Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Standing Counsel
(SDMC) with Ms. Biji Rajesh and Mr. Shreesh Chadha, Advocates for Review
Petitioner
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
The present matter has been taken up for hearing through Video
Conferencing on account of COVID-19 pandemic.
The present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
2020:DHC:3406-DB instituted on behalf of the applicant/review petitioner praying as follows:-
(a) Allow the present Application and condone the delay of 157 which has been caused in filing the accompanying Review Petition.
(b) Pass any other order(s) and further order(s) as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice.
Having heard lerned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/review petitioner and in view of the order we propose to pass in these review petitions, the delay of 157 days in filing them is condoned in the interest of justice.
The application is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
1. The present Review Petitions Nos.145/2020 and 146/2020 under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 instituted on behalf of the East Delhi Municipal Corporation/respondent No.1 and South Delhi Municipal Corporation/respondent No.2 respectively, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Municipal Corporations’) pray as follows:- (a) Review the order dated 17.01.2020 passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.C No. 11200 of 2017 titled as "Krishan Kanta Sharma vs. Ors. vs EDMC". (b) Pass any other order(s) and further order(s) as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice.
2. It is the case of the Municipal Corporations in the present petitions seeking review of the judgment and order dated 17.01.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘subject order), passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 11200/2017 that the same is bad essentially on the ground that it has incorrectly recorded a finding of fact in the subject order to the effect that, ‘there is nothing in the applicable rules to indicate that the benefits of the ACP Scheme shall hinge upon one's number of years of service’.
3. Mr. Gaurang Kanth, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Municipal Corporations states that the above finding is contrary to the plain reading of the ACP Scheme itself, which clearly provides that only an employee who serves regularly for a period of 12 years and 24 years sequentially are entitled to the first ACP Scheme and second ACP Scheme, respectively.
4. Having heard Mr. Gaurang Kanth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioners at length and perused the decision of this Court dated 16.11.2005 in W.P.(C) 148/1997, titled as ‘Smt. Urmil Chopra vs. The Commissioner & Anr.’, as well as, the order under review read in conjunction with the material placed on record, we find ourselves unable to agree with the submission made on behalf of the Municipal Corporations; for the reason that in Smt. Urmil Chopra (supra) this Court clearly and unequivocally held that she would be entitled to be considered as a Regular Community Worker from the date on which she was first employed part time in that post.
5. The above ratio to the facts of the present case has been considered by this Court vide order dated 17.01.2020 and applied as follows:-
6. A plain reading of the above extracted paragraphs reflects, that this Court vide the order under review, held that the original petitioners herein would be considered to have been engaged on a full time basis, even though their initial engagement was characterized as ‘Community Worker (Part Time)’; and would resultantly be entitled to the benefit extended to Mrs. Urmil Chopra.
7. Mr. Gaurang Kanth, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioners invites our attention to paragraph 1 of the decision in Smt. Urmil Chopra (supra) to urge that the benefit granted to her was only in the context of her entitlement to pensionary benefits and did not extend to the consideration of the ACP Scheme.
8. In our considered view, if we were to accept this contention urged on behalf of the Municipal Corporations, the same would result in the consequence that the order under review failed to appreciate the ratio in Smt. Urmil Chopra (supra) correctly and fell into error in applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
9. It is trite to state that an error of law or an erroneous judgment, cannot be corrected in a proceeding under review, even if the argument of learned counsel for review petitioners is accepted.
10. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the review petitions are devoid of merit and the same are accordingly dismissed, leaving the Municipal Corporations to take appropriate steps, if so advised, in accordance with law.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL (JUDGE)
TALWANT SINGH (JUDGE) NOVEMBER 26, 2020 dn Click here to check corrigendum, if any