Full Text
W.P.(C) 9438/2018 & C.M. No. 36645/2018 (for stav^
(Arising out of the order passed in OA No.1543/2017)
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Petitioner
Through: Mrs.' Biji Rajesh, Advocate for Mr.Gaurang Kanth, Advocate.
Through: Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Adv. for respondents.
Ms. Garima Prashad, Standing Counsel, SDMC with Ms.Poonam
Anand, Advocate for R-130/SDMC.
Mr. Abhay Sharan Singh, Advocate forR-131/EDMC. Mr. Arun Birbal and Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocates for SDMC.
(Arising out ofthe order passed in OA No. 1543/2017)
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Petitioner
Through; Mr. Arun Birbal and Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocates.
Through: Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondents.
(Arising out ofthe order passed in OA No.3 637/2015)
2018:DHC:8991-DB SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arun Birbal and Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocates.
Through: None.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
ORDER o/„ 11.12.2018
L The petitioners have preferred these writ petitions to assail similar orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (in short 'Tribunal') in the Original Applications taken note hereinabove.
JUDGMENT
2. The Tribunal allowed the claim made by the respondents/applicants for grant of grade pay in the hierarchy ofposts under the MACP Scheme. As opposed to that, according to the petitioner, the respondents were entitled to the fixation in thenext grade pay. The Tribunal has primarily relied upon the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.19387/2011 and the order passed by this court in WP(C) 3608/2014 on 14.07.2014. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that there are four decisions of this Court in which they have taken a contrary view from theview taken bythePunjab and Haryana High Court. These are:-
(i) R.S. Sengor &Ors. vs. Union ofIndia &Ors., 2011 SCC OnLine
Del 1662 [WP(C) 3420/2010 decided on 04.04.2011]; {i\)Union ofIndia V[5]. Delhi Nurses Union (Regd.) &Am., 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4395: (2012) 193 DLT 577 (DB) [WP(C) 5146/2012 decided on 24.08.2012];
(iii) East Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors. vs. Vinai Kumar
(iv) Union ofIndia and others vs. D.S. Rawat and others, 2016 SCC
3. The submission is that the Tribunal has not taken note of these decisions rendered by this Court while passing the impugned order.
4. Mr. Bhardwaj, Advocate, who appears for the respondents, points out that the respondents had also contended that the fixation of their pay under the MACP Scheme, as proposed by the petitioners, would lead to an anomaly. He has specifically referred to the averments made in para 4.11 of O.A. No.1543/2017 (Forum ofMCD Engineers & Ors. vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation &Ors.). This plea has been raised by the applicants in the other Original Application as well. However, the said plea has not been considered by the Tribunal since it disposed of the Original Applications primarily placing reliance on the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and on its own earlier orders which are also assailed before this Court.
5. In the light ofthe aforesaid, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and to remand the case back to the Tribunal for consideration of the plea of discrimination set up by the applicants in their respective Original Applications-which has been referred to above.
6. We direct the Tribunal to take into consideration the aforesaid decisions of this Court and the other decisions of the Tribunal itself, which are relied upon by the petitioners, and to specifically deal with the plea of discrimination independently.
7. The respondents in W.P.(C) 11725/2018 have already been granted the up-gradation of pay in terms of the impugned order. The said arrangement shall continue, subject to further orders and till the Tribunal s order is passed.
8. List the matters beforethe Tribunal on 08.01.2019.
9. Petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
DECEMBER 11, 2018 nn VIPiN SANGHI,J JYOTfSINGH, J