Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Mahi Lal Anand

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM APPL. 50945-46/2025 (Exemption)

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the Order dated 14.01.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No.619/2023, titled Sh.Mahi Lal Anand v. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors., allowing the O.A. filed by the respondent herein with the following directions: W.P.(C) 12481/2025 & CM APPL. 50944/2025

reasons of parity, the Original Application is allowed with a direction to the respondents to pay the applicant pay and allowances to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) for the period from 03.01.2020 to 15.07.2021, when the applicant was performing his duties for the said post. The above directions shall be complied with within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.”

3. Admittedly, the respondent, who had been working as Junior Engineer (Electrical), was given the look-after charge of the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the Delhi Municipal Corporation, Rohini Zone, with effect from 03.01.2020. Subsequently, the respondent was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on an ad hoc basis on 16.07.2021 and was, thereafter, confirmed in the said post on 31.01.2023. The respondent claims that for the period from 03.01.2020 to 15.07.2021, when he was performing the duties as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on a look-after charge basis, he was entitled to the salary and allowances attached to the said post. He submitted a representation on 21.07.2022, however, the same was not responded to. Thereafter, he filed the above O.A. before the learned Tribunal seeking the salary and allowances for the said period.

4. The learned Tribunal, as noted hereinabove, allowed the O.A. filed by the respondent, placing reliance on a several Judgments of this Court as well as of the Supreme Court, and invoking the ‘Principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work.’

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in passing the above direction without appreciating that the order by which the respondent was given the look-after charge of the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) stated that the respondent would not be entitled to any enhancement of pay. Having accepted this order, the respondent could not later challenge the same.

6. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, we find no force in the same.

7. It is not denied that the respondent performed his duties as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) between 03.01.2020 to 15.07.2021. This cannot be treated as a Short-Term Arrangement. The stipulation in the Office Order also cannot deprive the respondent of his legitimate and legal rights to the salary for the post on which he worked.

8. Keeping in view the above, we find no merit in the present petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. The pending application is also disposed of as being infructuous.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J MADHU JAIN, J AUGUST 19, 2025/Arya/DG