Ravinder Kaushik Vs. M.C.D. Through Its Commissioner, Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi and Others - Court Judgment

Oral:

1. In this Application filed by the applicant working as Ward Boy with the respondent’s Corporation under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the following reliefs have been sought :-

“(a) To direct the respondents to set aside the impugned order dated 11.06.2010;

(b) To direct the respondents to review the case of the applicant once again for regular appointment on compassionate grounds as Ward Boy against the vacancies available in the year 2005 for which compassionate appointment committee was constituted in the year 2007 in terms of Old policy and the applicant may ordered to be regularized accordingly.

(c) To direct the respondents to consider regularization of the applicant by way of formulating phase manner policy which was being applied in earlier cases by which number of compassionate appointees were benefited.        (d) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the applicant.”

2. Vide order dated 11.6.2010, the applicant has been informed of the decision of the Compassionate Appointment Committee taken in its meeting held on 7.4.2010 that his case has been rejected for having scored 01 (one) point, as per the relevant guidelines dated 18.6.2009 and due to limited availability of sufficient vacancy under 5% quota meant for compassionate appointment. The applicant has moved under Right to Information Act to obtain certain information based on which it has been submitted that there have been vacancies against which the applicant could have been considered for regularization but the respondents failed to do so. The applicant’s further contention is that his case needs to be considered first before making any direct regular appointment on compassionate basis.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the applicant’s father died in harness on 31.01.2002 while working in Municipal Council of Delhi. The applicant was appointed by the respondent’s Corporation as Ward Boy on daily wage basis on compassionate grounds on 13.11.2003. Since then the applicant has been working with the respondent’s Corporation in that capacity. The applicant’s case is that the Screening Committee so constituted convened on 19.6.2007 which should have considered the applicant for appointment under 5% quota meant for compassionate appointment but instead of doing that, the Committee appointed 15 persons on regular basis directly. It has been contended by the applicant that so far as MCD is concerned, prior to 2007, the persons were given compassionate appointment on daily wage basis and their regularization were to be made on the basis of phase manner scheme formulated by the competent authority from time to time. But in 2009 fir the firest time appointments were given to fresh persons ignoring the old cases. The contention of the applicant is that since the persons were already in queue waiting for confirmation, the respondents should have appointed them first before giving appointment to other fresh candidates.

4. The applicant’s claim has been opposed by the respondents in their counter affidavit wherein it has inter alia been stated that the applicant having already been appointed as Ward Boy on daily wage basis would be due for regularization as per the respondent’s Corporation policy and cannot be considered afresh for further compassionate appointment. The respondent’s stand is that the persons engaged on daily wage basis during the period from 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2003 have already been regularized w.e.f. 1.4.2006 as per the Circular No.91/LWD/HQ/06 dated 02.03.2006. Since the applicant would be eligible for consideration of his case for regularization, he was under consideration for compassionate appointment by the Screening Committee on 19.6.2007 and it has further been stated that no regular appointment is made under 5 % quota since 2000 until 2004. However, compassionate appointments are given after 2004 vide Circular No.CED/RK/114 dated 23.4.2004.

5. On a careful consideration of the respective pleadings of the parties, it is noted that the respondents have taken conflicting stands in their counter reply. On the one hand, they are saying that the applicant has already been appointed on compassionate grounds as Ward Boy on daily wage basis and his case would be considered for regularization as per the regularization policy and not against 5% quota meant for compassionate appointment and on the other hand, they are applying the new policy with regard to compassionate appointment whereby the applicant has been treated as ineligible for compassionate appointment on relative merits as is seen from the impugned order dated 11.6.2010, as at Annexure A/1. Both the stands of the respondents cannot simultaneously stand. The learned counsel for the respondents has therefore been called upon to clarify as to whether the case of the applicant would be considered for regularization as per the regularization policy and if so by what time, he would be regularized as per the policy and furthermore, in such eventuality how could the applicant has been considered for compassionate appointment afresh as is indicated by the impugned order dated 11.6.2010. The respondents have provided the necessary clarification by way of an affidavit wherein it has, inter alia, been stated that daily wagers engaged upto 10.4.2006 are to be regularized as per the policy of the Corporation being a phased manner. However, the date from which the said daily wagers would be regularized has not been decided till date by the respondent’s Corporation. A copy of Circular dated 2.3.2006 has been annexed with the said affidavit. This does not meet the requirement of the queries put to the respondent’s counsel.

6. I do not find any definite and continuing policy providing for regularization of all the persons working as daily wages with the respondent’s Corporation. The circular to which reliance has been made by the respondents in the reply indicates one time measure as has been approved by the Commissioner vide his orders dated 25.2.2006 for regularization of persons engaged on daily wages/muster roll for maintenance work/work of regular nature engaged during the period from 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2003 w.e.f. 1.4.2006 in pursuance of Corporation Resolution No.273 dated 27.6.1988, subject to the conditions mentioned therein. These conditions are that (1) regularization should only be against a sanctioned post. For this, Department must indicate sanctioned posts, mention position and vacant posts; (2) vacancies for over a year would need to be sanctioned again by the competent authority; and (3) Departments should mention posts surrendered on account of privatization/public private participation/cadre review/abolition because of V-th Pay Commission. From this, it cannot be inferred that there has been any policy of the respondents for regularization of its employees working on daily wages such as the applicant appointed after 31.3.2003. This precisely the reason why the respondent’s counsel is unable to give any definite time limit by which the applicant and other similarly placed persons would be regularized by the respondent’s Corporation. Had there been any definite policy in this regard, it would have been feasible to ascertain a time frame vis-à-vis the applicant within which he could have been considered for regularization in due course as per the Scheme. The applicant is thus confronted with a peculiar dilemma having already been appointed as a Ward Boy on daily wages on compassionate ground, he is no longer eligible for regular appointment on the ground of compassion although persons coming on the scene subsequently may have been regularized on direct appointment on compassionate basis. On the other, it is not sure and when he would be regularized as there does not seem to be any definite policy of the respondent’s Corporation on this aspect of the matter. Certainly, the case of the applicant is not covered under the Circular dated 2.3.2006.

7. In these premises, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in all fairness as well as in the interest of justice, the respondent’s Corporation ought to give due consideration to the plight of the applicant and take appropriate decision for redressal of the grievances of the applicant and other similarly placed persons who are neither in receipt of benefit of Circular of 2006 on the one hand and also not eligible for consideration for compassionate appointment afresh. The counsel appearing for the respondents fairly conceded that there could not be any plausible objection to this.

8. In view of the above and on consensual basis, this Application is disposed of with the directions to the respondents to consider as to what policy measures need to be evolved by the respondent’s Corporation to redress the grievances of the applicant herein as well as other similarly situated and inform the applicant result thereof through a reasoned and speaking order at the earliest and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it has not neither been considered necessary for me to go into the merits of the case nor the directions issued as aforesaid are intended to operate to the prejudice of the respondents in any manner whatsoever.

9. Needless to say, it will be open to the applicant to seek legal redressal, if any further grievance survives.

10. The Application is accordingly disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs.