Shri Lal Chand Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
the case focused on the permissibility to revoke the order of regularization - it was ruled that the order, regularizing the incumbent against the sanctioned post and pay scale, could not be kept in abeyance by a subsequent order - thereforee, the subsequent orders revoking the order of regularization were quashed - - tewatia, learned counsel appearing for the mcd submitted that the counter affidavit could not be filed in this case because the original records pertaining to the petitioner are not traceable in the mcd and despite their best efforts they could not locate those records.1. the petitioner has preferred this writ petition in which it has been prayed that the order dated july 16, 1986 passed by the assistant commissioner (engg.), municipal corporation of delhi, engineering department be quashed. 2. the petitioner by the order dated february 20, 1995 was regularised in div. -iv w.e.f. april 1, 1982 against the post of mason in the pay scale of rs. 220-270 with usual allowances as admissible to the employees of mcd and terms and rules indicated in that letter. on july 16, 1986 the assistant commissioner (engg.) passed the order by which the order regularising the petitioner was kept in abeyance till further orders. 3. the petitioner aggrieved by the said order filed this writ petition. this court issued show cause notice on december 16, 1987. mrs. tewatia, learned counsel appearing for the mcd submitted that the counter affidavit could not be filed in this case because the original records pertaining to the petitioner are not traceable in the mcd and despite their best efforts they could not locate those records. 4. mrs. tewatia further submitted that in response to the notice only one letter has been handed over to her by the mcd, i.e., the letter dated july 25, 1994. in the said letter itself it is mentioned that the petitioner was regularised w.e.f. april 1, 1982 and worked as regular mason in div-iv in august, 1995. she also submitted that apart from this letter, she has received no other document or instructions from the mcd and she cannot explain why the order regularising the services of the petitioner was kept in abeyance. the petitioner's services were regularised from april 1, 1982 and the regularisation could not be kept in abeyance by ,subsequent order dated july 16, 1986, without any basis or any material on record. in any event this order could not be passed without giving any notice to the petitioner. 5. in these circumstances, the petition has to be allowed and consequently the order dated s july 15, 1986 is quashed. the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. the arrears shall be paid to him within two months from today. 6. in the facts and circumstances of this case, direct the parties to bear their own costs.