The Post Master Main Post Office, Palwal City and Ors v. Bir Singh

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J. August 24, 2023/akc

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: August 24, 2023 + THE POST MASTER MAIN POST OFFICE, PALWAL CITY AND ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with Mr. Waize Ali Noor and Mr. Madhav Bajaj, Advocates. versus BIR SINGH ..... Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA V. KAMESWAR RAO (Oral) 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated December 05, 2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench ('Tribunal' for short), in O.A. 2110/2013, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the O.A. filed by the respondent herein by stating in paragraphs 11 & 12 as under: "11. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are also of the considered view that the services of Applicant Chowkidar (night Watchman) could not have been treated as on ''part time". It is not the case of the Respondents that while the Applicant was working on part-time basis because there was another part-time Chowkidar also who was sharing his duty for half time. Therefore, since the Applicant has been working for the last 26 years as Chowkidar from 5.00 P.M. to 8.00 P.M. everyday, he could not have been treated and paid as a ''part-time Chowkidar". The post of Chowkidar being the lowest post in the Government offices/departments, the holders of those posts should have not been exploited in such manner. Another aspect of the case is that there is no dispute that the post of the so called "Part Time" Chowkidar was sanctioned. The Applicant himself has produced documentary proof to the effect that the said post was sanctioned. Even otherwise, when a person was performing the duty of Chowkidar for several years, it cannot be said that there was no sanctioned post. It is for the Government to sanction the posts when required and to abolish them, when not required. We, therefore, hold that the disengagement of the Applicant citing the judgment of Uma Devi's case (supra) was arbitrary and illegal. We also cannot subscribe to the submission of the Respondents that since the Palwal Sub-Post Office was burnt down in the year 1990, the service rendered by the Applicant from 1988 will get obliterated altogether. The Respondents have also not tried to get any collateral evidence such as statement of the persons who have been working along with him in the said Post Office in the year 1988. In such circumstances, when the exact date of engagement of the Applicant in the year 1988 is not available, they may treat the date of his appointment from the middle of that year, i.e., 01.06.1988. 12. In the result, the Applicant succeeds and the OA is allowed with the following directions:- (i) The Respondents shall reinstate the Applicant as Chowkidar in service immediately with continuity of service with effect from 01.06.1988 with full back wages and attendant benefits. They shall work out uptodate difference in pay and allowances and pay the same to the Applicant. (ii) They shall also regularize his service as Chowkidar from the aforesaid date. (ii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Respondents shall pay the cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to Applicant. (iv) The aforesaid directions shall be complied with, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 2. The O.A. of the respondent before the Tribunal was a challenge to the termination effected by the petitioners herein of his engagement w.e.f. July 24, 2011. 3. It was the case of the respondent that, he was initially engaged in the year 1988 to work as a part time Chowkidar with working hours from 5.00 PM to 8.00 AM, i.e. 15 hours per day for 26 years, uninterruptedly. It was also his case that, despite the long duration of service, his services have been terminated without issuing a show cause notice to enable him to make a representation against his termination. On July 24, 2011, the petitioners herein told the