Pushpa Sharma and ors. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
in the instant case, the petitioner were the tailoring instructors under the scheme of the central government for the development of the rural area for earning the livelihood - it was found that petitioner had worked for about 9 years on the said post - it was found that the scheme was continuing to which the service of the petitioner were dispensed with - also, the court issued the direction to the respondents to prepare panel and give preference to the petitioners in filling the vacancies - hence, it was held that under the sick industrial companies (special provisions) act, 1985, the vacancies were given by giving preference to the petitioners and other similarly situated person on the basis of the seniority in the panel - - the case of the petitioners is clearly covered by the aforesaid judgment. 108/92 filed by the petitioners and other similarly situated persons were disposed of by this court on 16.3.1993 and in the said judgment, this court, on the basis of the judgment of delhi development horticulture's case (supra) clearly held that petitioners could not claim regularisation straightway.ordera.k.sikri, j.1. this is second round of litigation. petitioners had earlier filed writ petition no. 4111/91 & cw no.108/92 which were disposed of by this court vide order dated 16.3.1993 giving certain directions. certain subsequent events which have taken place thereafter have prompted the petitioners to file this writ petition. these events would be mentioned at appropriate stage while recapitulating the facts in their entirety. let me first narrate these facts as they appear in the writ petition. 2. in april 1982, the central government formulated a scheme for the development of rural area particularly so as to earn their livelihood. under that scheme, the delhi administration created many centers for imparting tailoring, knitting, cutting embroidery etc. for the rural women. among other centers formulated a scheme known as khanjhawala, mehrauli are one of the tailoring centres and tailoring instructors were required to impart training to them. these tailoring instructors were to be appointed in fixed and consolidated pay basis. accordingly, the petitioners were selected as tailoring instructors on consolidated pay of rs. 600/- per month initially on purely temporary basis for a period of three months w.e.f. 1.4.1982 to 3.6.1982. later on the period was extended from time to time, till december 1991. 3. though the scheme was continuing, the services of the petitioners were dispensed with and no further extension was granted beyond 28.12.1991. accordingly the petitioners filed cws no.4111/91 & 108/92 claiming reinstatement and appointment on regular basis contending that a lot of investment has been made in the shape of knitting and sewing machines and the petitioners being trained instructors imparted training to the rural women folk. on the basis of the training imparted by the petitioners, most of the trainees got jobs in some government, semi-government offices and they are taking the benefit of the training for earning their own source of livelihood. it was also averred that the petitioners had put in about 9/10 years service in this department and the status of their lives had also been changed. some got married and have a few children to support. besides that the petitioners had become overaged and cannot get any job either in the government or semi-government departments. 4. the writ petitions filed by the petitioners were disposed of by the high court by order dated 16.3.1993. 5. this court directed the respondent- delhi administration to prepare a panel of the petitioners and give them preference in employment when there occurred a vacancy in the regular post. 6. that subsequently, the petitioners approached the respondent authorities a number of times but the appointments were not given to the petitioners. finally they issued a legal notice on 19.8.1997 and when even the legal notice did not elicit any response, present writ petition was filed. 7. from the facts narrated above, it is clear that the petitioners could not claim regularisation straightway in view of the judgment of supreme court in the case of delhi development horticulture employees' union vs . delhi administration, delhi & ors., : (1992)iillj452sc . in the said case, supreme court categorically held that employees working in various schemes by drda have no right to claim regularisation. the case of the petitioners is clearly covered by the aforesaid judgment. moreover, the earlier writ petitions being cw no. 4111/91 and cw no. 108/92 filed by the petitioners and other similarly situated persons were disposed of by this court on 16.3.1993 and in the said judgment, this court, on the basis of the judgment of delhi development horticulture's case (supra) clearly held that petitioners could not claim regularisation straightway. the present case is to be dealt with on the basis of directions passed in judgment dated 16.3.1993 by this court in the aforesaid writ petitions. this is what the court observed in its judgment dated 16.3.1993 which reads as under: 'a similar matter came up before the supreme court in delhi development horticulture employees union v. delhi administration, delhi civil writ no. 323 of 1989, wherein by judgment dated 4th february, 1992, it was held that the employees were purely temporary. there were no posts against which they could be regularised nor there were sanctioned posts and on winding up of the scheme they had to be rendered surplus. the supreme court observed as follows: 'in the circumstances, it is not possible to accede to the request of the petitioners that the respondents be directed to regularise them. the most that can be done for them is to direct the respondent-delhi administration to keep them on a panel and if they are registered with the employment exchange and are qualified to be appointed on the relevant posts, give them a preference in employment whenever there occurs a vacancy in the regular posts, which direction we give hereby.' the fete of the petitioners is similar. accordingly, we direct that while the petitioners cannot be regularised, the respondent- delhi administration should get them on a panel if they are registered with the employment exchange and are qualified for being appointed to the post, give them a preference in employment whenever there occurs a vacancy in the regular posts. the petitioners have been working over ten years and thereforee, they would be age bar. this will not stand in the way of the petitioners. counsel for the petitioners urges that in this case the condition of registration with the employment exchange should be not adhered to. we are afraid that we cannot agree with the learned counsel in view of the aforesaid decision of the supreme court. in the additional affidavit, it is stated by the petitioners that the delhi administration has started delhi urban development agency (for short 'duda') for the urban area and there one of the erstwhile employees of the drda has been employed. we direct the respondent-delhi administration that for filling up the posts in duda, preference would be given to the aforesaid persons of the drda as against outsiders unless there are other persons senior to them in the panel in the delhi administration.' 8. thus while holding that petitioners cannot be regularised, this court gave the following directions to respondents: (a) respondents should keep the petitioners on a panel if they are registered with employment exchange and are qualified for being appointed to posts. (b) give the petitioners preference in employment whenever there occurs a vacancy in the regular post. (c) for this purpose, there will not be any age bar as these petitioners have been working for 10 years. (d) for filling up post in duda preference be given to the afore-said persons of drda as against the outsiders, unless there are other persons senior to them in the panel in delhi administration. 9. in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is submitted that the respondents never denied any opportunity to the petitioners to apply for recruitment to any post in any other department and the same is always open to the petitioners. the petitioners may be appointed to other departments having vacancies available. the recruitment to the other departments has to be made according to the recruitment rules applicable to them. the names of the petitioners have been sent to services department vide letter no. f.1170/73 dated 12.10.1994. names are also sent to three other departments vide letter f.1765-67 dated 12.8.1997 and circulated to all departments vide circular no. 37(3) dev. ho/sc/94/1066-91 dated 8.7.1997 for preparing the panel of the petitioners to fulfill requisite qualifications subject to their register with the employment exchange in accordance with the direction of the supreme court and the high court. it is further stated that preference is to be given as per directions to the petitioners for employment only on the occurrence of vacancies. respondents have complied with these directions as the names of petitioners have been sent to the departments for consideration against the vacated post lying under them. 10. in the writ petition filed by the petitioners, the only grievance raised is that after the orders dated 16.3.1993, petitioners have not been absorbed/re-employed and any action in not absorbing the petitioners was illegal. however it is not mentioned as to how the orders dated 16.3.1993 are violated or the directions are not complied with. as per these directions, respondents were only supposed to prepare the panel and give the preference to the petitioners as and when vacancies occur, on the basis of seniority in the panel. however it is only in the rejoinder that the petitioners have tried to allege that respondents did not prepare the panel according to seniority and some appointments are given on pick and choose basis. the fact remains that the six persons whose names are mentioned in the rejoinder and who have been given the appointments are the persons who were petitioners in cw no. 4111/91 and cw no.108/92. 11. accordingly this writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the respondents to adhere to the directions contained in order dated 16.3.1993 and as and when vacancies occur give the preference to the peti-tioners and other similarly situated persons on the basis of seniority in the panel. needless to mention if there is any violation already committed or the respondents commit in future of the orders dated 16.3.1993, the proper course is to file contempt petition. otherwise in the absence of regular vacancies, directions to absorb these petitioners cannot be given nor there was any such mandate in the order dated 16.3.1993. writ petition stands disposed of. no orders as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

A.K.Sikri, J.

1. This is second round of litigation. Petitioners had earlier filed writ petition No. 4111/91 & CW No.108/92 which were disposed of by this Court vide order dated 16.3.1993 giving certain directions. Certain subsequent events which have taken place thereafter have prompted the petitioners to file this writ petition. These events would be mentioned at appropriate stage while recapitulating the facts in their entirety. Let me first narrate these facts as they appear in the writ petition.

2. In April 1982, the Central Government formulated a scheme for the development of rural area particularly so as to earn their livelihood. Under that scheme, the Delhi Administration created many centers for imparting tailoring, knitting, cutting embroidery etc. for the rural women. Among other centers formulated a scheme known as Khanjhawala, Mehrauli are one of the tailoring centres and Tailoring Instructors were required to impart training to them. These Tailoring Instructors were to be appointed in fixed and consolidated pay basis. Accordingly, the petitioners were selected as Tailoring Instructors on consolidated pay of Rs. 600/- per month initially on purely temporary basis for a period of three months w.e.f. 1.4.1982 to 3.6.1982. Later on the period was extended from time to time, till December 1991.

3. Though the scheme was continuing, the services of the petitioners were dispensed with and no further extension was granted beyond 28.12.1991. Accordingly the petitioners filed CWs No.4111/91 & 108/92 claiming reinstatement and appointment on regular basis contending that a lot of investment has been made in the shape of knitting and sewing machines and the petitioners being trained instructors imparted training to the rural women folk. On the basis of the training imparted by the petitioners, most of the Trainees got jobs in some Government, Semi-Government offices and they are taking the benefit of the training for earning their own source of livelihood. It was also averred that the petitioners had put in about 9/10 years service in this Department and the status of their lives had also been changed. Some got married and have a few children to support. Besides that the petitioners had become overaged and cannot get any job either in the Government or Semi-Government Departments.

4. The writ petitions filed by the petitioners were disposed of by the High Court by order dated 16.3.1993.

5. This Court directed the respondent- Delhi Administration to prepare a panel of the petitioners and give them preference in employment when there occurred a vacancy in the regular post.

6. That subsequently, the petitioners approached the respondent authorities a number of times but the appointments were not given to the petitioners. Finally they issued a legal notice on 19.8.1997 and when even the legal notice did not elicit any response, present writ petition was filed.

7. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that the petitioners could not claim regularisation straightway in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union Vs . Delhi Administration, Delhi & Ors., : (1992)IILLJ452SC . In the said case, Supreme Court categorically held that employees working in various schemes by DRDA have no right to claim regularisation. The case of the petitioners is clearly covered by the aforesaid judgment. Moreover, the earlier writ petitions being CW No. 4111/91 and CW No. 108/92 filed by the petitioners and other similarly situated persons were disposed of by this Court on 16.3.1993 and in the said judgment, this Court, on the basis of the judgment of Delhi Development Horticulture's case (supra) clearly held that petitioners could not claim regularisation straightway. The present case is to be dealt with on the basis of directions passed in judgment dated 16.3.1993 by this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions. This is what the Court observed in its judgment dated 16.3.1993 which reads as under:

'A similar matter came up before the Supreme Court in Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Administration, Delhi Civil Writ No. 323 of 1989, wherein by judgment dated 4th February, 1992, it was held that the employees were purely temporary. There were no posts against which they could be regularised nor there were sanctioned posts and on winding up of the scheme they had to be rendered surplus. The Supreme Court observed as follows:

'In the circumstances, it is not possible to accede to the request of the petitioners that the respondents be directed to regularise them. The most that can be done for them is to direct the respondent-Delhi Administration to keep them on a panel and if they are registered with the Employment Exchange and are qualified to be appointed on the relevant posts, give them a preference in employment whenever there occurs a vacancy in the regular posts, which direction we give hereby.'

The fete of the petitioners is similar. Accordingly, we direct that while the petitioners cannot be regularised, the respondent- Delhi Administration should get them on a panel if they are registered with the Employment Exchange and are qualified for being appointed to the post, give them a preference in employment whenever there occurs a vacancy in the regular posts. The petitioners have been working over ten years and thereforee, they would be age bar. This will not stand in the way of the petitioners.

Counsel for the petitioners urges that in this case the condition of registration with the employment exchange should be not adhered to. We are afraid that we cannot agree with the learned counsel in view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court.

In the additional affidavit, it is stated by the petitioners that the Delhi Administration has started Delhi Urban Development Agency (for short 'DUDA') for the urban area and there one of the erstwhile employees of the DRDA has been employed. We direct the respondent-Delhi Administration that for filling up the posts in DUDA, preference would be given to the aforesaid persons of the DRDA as against outsiders unless there are other persons senior to them in the panel in the Delhi Administration.'

8. Thus while holding that petitioners cannot be regularised, this Court gave the following directions to respondents:

(a) Respondents should keep the petitioners on a panel if they are registered with Employment Exchange and are qualified for being appointed to posts.

(b) Give the petitioners preference in employment whenever there occurs a vacancy in the regular post.

(c) For this purpose, there will not be any age bar as these petitioners have been working for 10 years.

(d) For filling up post in DUDA preference be given to the afore-said persons of DRDA as against the outsiders, unless there are other persons senior to them in the panel in Delhi Administration.

9. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is submitted that the respondents never denied any opportunity to the petitioners to apply for recruitment to any post in any other department and the same is always open to the petitioners. The petitioners may be appointed to other departments having vacancies available. The recruitment to the other departments has to be made according to the recruitment rules applicable to them. The names of the petitioners have been sent to services department vide letter No. F.1170/73 dated 12.10.1994. Names are also sent to three other departments vide letter F.1765-67 dated 12.8.1997 and circulated to all departments vide circular No. 37(3) Dev. HO/SC/94/1066-91 dated 8.7.1997 for preparing the panel of the petitioners to fulfill requisite qualifications subject to their register with the employment exchange in accordance with the direction of the Supreme Court and the High Court. It is further stated that preference is to be given as per directions to the petitioners for employment only on the occurrence of vacancies. Respondents have complied with these directions as the names of petitioners have been sent to the departments for consideration against the vacated post lying under them.

10. In the writ petition filed by the petitioners, the only grievance raised is that after the orders dated 16.3.1993, petitioners have not been absorbed/re-employed and any action in not absorbing the petitioners was illegal. However it is not mentioned as to how the orders dated 16.3.1993 are violated or the directions are not complied with. As per these directions, respondents were only supposed to prepare the panel and give the preference to the petitioners as and when vacancies occur, on the basis of seniority in the panel. However it is only in the rejoinder that the petitioners have tried to allege that respondents did not prepare the panel according to seniority and some appointments are given on pick and choose basis. The fact remains that the six persons whose names are mentioned in the rejoinder and who have been given the appointments are the persons who were petitioners in CW No. 4111/91 and CW No.108/92.

11. Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the respondents to adhere to the directions contained in order dated 16.3.1993 and as and when vacancies occur give the preference to the peti-tioners and other similarly situated persons on the basis of seniority in the panel. Needless to mention if there is any violation already committed or the respondents commit in future of the orders dated 16.3.1993, the proper course is to file contempt petition. Otherwise in the absence of regular vacancies, directions to absorb these petitioners cannot be given nor there was any such mandate in the order dated 16.3.1993.

Writ Petition stands disposed of.

No orders as to costs.