Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 26 October, 2010
+ W.P.(C) 12915/2004
SATINDER KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Romil Pathak, Advocate
Versus
LT. GOVERNOR NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ....Respondents
Through: Mr.Manoj K.Rath, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
CM No.13981/2010
1. Allowed.
2. Order dated 30.8.2010 dismissing the writ petition
in default is recalled and the writ petition is restored for
hearing.
WP(C)No.12915/2004
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Vide impugned order dated 3.12.2003 the Original
Application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as
barred by limitation.
3. Relevant facts are that the petitioner was appointed
W.P.(C) No.12915/2004 Page 1 of 3
as a Laboratory/O.T. technician on emergency basis and from
time to time employment was extended, till considering the
representations filed by the petitioner that having served for
nearly 15 years his services may be regularized, services were
regularized w.e.f. 31.3.1999 and the petitioner was happy to
be a permanent and a regular employee and receive salary in
the grade applicable.
4. After about 2 years thereof, the petitioner started
making representations that he should be regularized w.e.f.
the year 1983 i.e. when his services were first taken on
emergency basis and started claiming back wages as also
annual increments with a retrospective date. The claim was
denied by the department and hence on 16.4.2002 he filed OA
No.1043/2003 praying that directions be issued to the
respondent to regularize his services w.e.f. the year 1983 and
that he be granted ACP benefit by placing him in the next
higher pay scale. The petitioner claimed arrears of salary.
5. The Tribunal held that the claim was barred by
limitation for the reason the cause of action, if any, accrued
when services were regularized w.e.f. 31.3.1999 but without
any retrospective applicability. The Tribunal noted that the
Original Application was filed on 16.5.2002 seeking
regularization with retrospective effect i.e. 17.1.1983.
6. We concur with the reasoning of the Tribunal for the
reason petitioner’s services were regularized on 31.3.1999 and
while so doing benefit of regularization from a retrospective
date was denied. If the petitioner was aggrieved he ought to
have approach the Tribunal within one year thereof.
7. That apart, the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme
Court has, in the decision reported as 2006 (4) SCC 1
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi, held that
regularization benefit, of being placed in the scale of pay w.e.f.
W.P.(C) No.12915/2004 Page 2 of 3
the date an employee was inducted in service, on temporary
or ad hoc basis, was impermissible.
8. Accordingly, we dismiss the writ petition but refrain
from imposing any costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(SIDDHARTH MRIDUL)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 26, 2010
rk
W.P.(C) No.12915/2004 Page 3 of 3