North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Sanjay Hingorani

2. The first petition being W.P.(C) 1106/2018 has been filed by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation('North DMC)through its Commissioner,as well as the Additional Commissioner (Engineer) and the Director (Personnel). Respondent Nos. 1 to 21 are the original applicants, whereas Respondent Nos.22to 112 were private respondents in the said O.A.

3. The second petition being W.P.(C)2834/2018 has been filed by some of the private respondents in the aforementioned O.A.No. 1603/2010.

4. The facts in brief are that the Petitioners in W.P.(C)2834/2018 (i.e. the private respondents in O.A. No. 1603/2010 before the CAT)were engaged initially on muster roll basis and were subsequently given ad hoc appointment as Junior Engineer (Civil/Electrical) ['JE']. The issue of the regularization oftheir services was placed before the Union Public Service Commission('UPSC')for its concurrence and for relaxation ofthe relevant Recruitment Rules('RRs'). It is stated that the UPSC by a letter dated 28^*" July, 2003 "agreed to relax the recruitment Regulation Nos. 6,[7] and 10 in terms ofRegulation 14(Power to relax)"to enable the erstwhile Municipal Corporation ofDelhi('MCD')to implementthe orders passed by this Court in writpetitions filed bythe said private respondents seeking regularization.

5. It is stated that the Ad Hoc(Appointments,Promotions,Disciplinary and Allied Matters) Committee of the MCD by its Resolution dated 1?"^ December,2003 recommended regularization, which was approved by the MCD by its Resolution dated 12"' January, 2004. Thereafter, the MCD appointed the aforementioned private respondents in.O.A. No. 1603/2010 W.P.(C)1106/2018& W.P.(C)2834/2018 Page2of[6] before the CAT as JEs on regular basis with effect from retrospective dates as mentioned against their names in the relevant office order dated 26'^ March,2004.The said office order appointed 38 such JEs. Subsequently,the MCD passed another office order dated 13^ June, 2005 pursuant to a Resolution dated 26'^ May, 2004, by which 53 more persons were regularized as JEs with retrospective effect after the relaxation ofRegulation Nos.6,7and 10 ofthe RRs.It must be noted that only such individuals who satisfied the educational/technical qualifications for the post ofJE and who had been appointed adhoc were asked to be regularized.

6. O.A. No. 1603/2010 came to be filed by Respondents 1 to 21 in W.P.(C) 1106/2018 challenging the aforementioned regularization orders as being illegal and unconstitutional.In the impugned order dated 20'^ August,2015, the CAThas declined to interfere with the orders regularizing the services of the private respondents before it. The CAT followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr.P.P. C. Rawani v. Union ofIndia(1992)SCC331 and directed as under: "36.Following the view taken bythe Hon'ble Supreme Courtin the aforementioned case, we dispose of the present Original Application with direction to the respondents to describe the private respondents herein as Junior Engineers (regularized) and to put them in a separate seniority block with their own seniority list, with all benefits of service including due promotions and give option to the applicants herein and to avoid their posting in such position where they may be required to work under the direct supervision of the said private respondents.No costs."

7. It is significant that the original applicants before the CAT accepted the above order and did not question it. In other words, they accepted the W.P.(C)1106/2018& W.P.(C)2834/2018 Page3of[6] regularization ofthe private respondents in the aforementioned O.A.

8. As far as the North DMC is concerned, it has approached this Court aggrieved by the directions contained in paragraph 36 of the order of the CAT to place the original applicants in a separate seniority block and providingthemthe optionto avoid a posting where theycould be required to work underthe directsupervision ofthe private respondentsin the O.A.

9. The private respondents on the other hand have approached the Court with the accompanying writ petition on account ofthe plausible ambiguity in the directions contained in the impugned order ofthe CAT as regards the preparation ofseparate seniority lists.

10. During the pendency ofthe present petition in this Court, the original applicants in O.A. No. 1603/2010 filed a contempt petition being C.P. NO. 73/2017 before the CAT. They contended that the North DMC had not complied with the directions issued by the CAT in its judgment dated 20^'' August,2015.It was stated therein thatby an order dated 6^^February,2018, the North DMC published a seniority list for the post ofJE,"duly showing the private respondents in the OA in a block under the heading of 'JEs (Civil/Elect.)(Regularised)." The contention ofthe original applicants was that a separate seniority list for the private respondents on the one hand and the original applicants on the other should be drawn.

11. The aforementioned C.P. No. 73/2017 was disposed ofby the CAT by an order dated 27*^^ September,2019,the relevant portion ofwhich reads as under: _ W.P.(C)1106/2018& W.P.(C)2834/2018 Page4of[6]

7. It is necessary to mention that the Tribunal refused to interfere withthe order ofregularization as well asthe seniority list. The direction issued is to the effect that the private respondents be described as "Junior Engineers (regularized)" and be put in the separate block in the seniority list. From the words "their own seniority list" the applicants intend to derive the meaning that the seniority list for "Junior Engineers (regularized) mustbe separate".Thatis notthe connotation of the orderin the O.A.The order refers to the senioritylist ofthe Junior Engineers in general and not to separate lists within that category. Nowhere,it is mentioned that two separate lists must ^ be maintained for the same post. At any rate,ifthe applicants are ofthe view that their seniority is affected in any manner,it shall be open to them to pursue the remedies, in accordance O, '^ith law. We,therefore,close the CP. Pending MAs,ifany,stands disposed of."

12. The above clarification issued by the CAT has been accepted by the parties before this Courti.e.the North DMC,the original applicants in O.A. No. 1603/2010 as well as the private respondents in the said O.A.In other words, the clarification issued by the CAT that its judgment dated 20"" August, 2015 did not envisage preparing separate seniority lists has been ^ acceptedbyalltheparties.

13. If that is the correct position, the direction issued by the CAT in the '.- impugned order dated 20"^ August,2015 that the original applicants should be given an option "to avoid their posting in such position where they may be required to work under the direct supervision of the said private respondents appears to this Court to be not only unnecessary but even impermissible. Ifthere is a common seniority list, it is plain thatjuniors in the said list would have to work subject to the seniors' supervision as and W.P.(C)1106/2018&W.P.(C)2834/2018 Page5of[6] )1 when consequential changes take place in the hierarchy within the organization. In other words,the question ofgiving an option to one set of employees to be given postings so that they may not work under the supervision ofanother set ofemployees senior tothem is plainly untenable.

14. Consequently, the Court has no hesitation in setting aside the said direction issued by the CAT in the impugned order dated 20^'' August,2015 giving the original applicants an option to avoid postings wherethey may be required to work under the direct supeiwision ofthe private respondents in O.A. No. 1603/2010. The Court further affirms the clarification issued by the CAT on September,2019 in C.P.No.73/2017.

15. The petitions and pending applications are disposed of in the above terms.