Jitender Singh v. Ndmc & Ors

SANJIV KHANNA, J pk

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 21st January, 2011 + JITENDER SINGH ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Sudharshan Rajan, Mr.S. Ratan Khare, Advs. versus NDMC & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Siddhi Arora, Adv. for NDMC Mr. K.C. Dubey, Adv. for Respondent No.2 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes DIPAK MISRA, CJ + CM No. 1338/2001 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') for condonation of delay of 1794 days in preferring the present intra-Court appeal wherein the order dated 7.10.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 5280/2000 is assailed. 2. In the application, in paragraph 7, the chronological list of dates to support the contentions has been given. We think it appropriate to reproduce the same: "07.10.2005: Judgment of the Ld. Single Judge (impugned herein) 27.03.2006: Respondent No.2 appointed as regularized Section Officer Horticulture. 27.10.2006: Seniority list wherein respondent no.2 is shown senior to the petitioner (This is the first time that the appellant came to know about the impugned order and was affected by virtue of the implementation of the impugned order). Nov., 2006 Petitioner filed W.P. No. 17231 of 2006 before this Hon'ble Court challenging the above order. Nil The Writ Petition filed by the appellant is transfer to the Ld. Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. 6.9.2010 O.A. is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellant to approach appropriate forum as per law. 5.10.2010 Appellant files LPA." 3. Presently we shall proceed to state the facts in detail to ascertain whether the application for condonation of delay is to be entertained and the delay should be condoned or not. The respondent No.2, Rais Ali, preferred CWP No.5280/2000 claiming regularization. The learned Single Judge, while dealing with his case along with other connected matters, passed the following order: "18. The note prepared by the NDMC dated 12.11.1999 is self-explanatory, which reads as follows: Shri Rais Ali was earlier working on regular muster roll post as Technical Supervisor. In NDMC there is no such post. Advise of the Director (Hort.) was sought. Director (Hort.) vide his note on page 2/n has stated that the post of Technical Supervisor is equivalent to Section Officer (Hort.) NDMC and it is a direct post. Pay scale of Section Officer is 4500-7000. He has been regularised on the post of Section Officer. Pay scale of Section Officer (Hort.) seems to be very high. At present there are two posts of Jr. Technical Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.3050- 4590 which is a departmental post. One post of Jr. Technical Assistant is also lying vacant. In view of the above the case is submitted for orders whether Rais Ali earlier appointed as Section Officer (Hort.) may be appointed as Jr. Technical Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 on the same terms and conditions please." His downgrading is attributable only to the unsustainable view that his pay scale "seems to be very high". Accordingly, the Order dated 16.11.1999 in his regard is quashed and he is directed to be regularized to the post of Section Officer as per Resolution No.8 dated 18.3.1999 with all consequential benefits." 4. After the said order came to be passed, the employer – NDMC, the respondent No.1 herein, prepared a seniority list on 27.10.2006. After the said seniority list was prepared, as has been indicated in the petition, the present appellant preferred Writ Petition No.17231/2006 for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the said seniority list as well as the order by which he was regularized. The learned Single Judge issued notice and thereafter when NDMC was covered by a notification issued under Section 14 of the Centra