VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Delhi High Court 2017 › High Court of Delhi

North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Hari Kishan & Anr

Court
High Court of Delhi
Decided
21 July 2017
Bench
Rajiv Sahai Endlawauthor
Case no.
CM(M) 21/2013

Judgment

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. JULY 21, 2017 'bs/gsr'..

Case details

Parties and counsel

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 21st July, 2017 + CM(M) 21/2013 & CM No.378/2013 (for stay) NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ... Petitioner Through: Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Ms. Anushruti and Ms. Vasundhara Nayyar, Advs. Versus HARI KISHAN & ANR. .... Respondents Through: Mr. Vivek B. Saharya, Adv. for R-1. Mr. Anurag Mathur, Adv. for R-2/DJB. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order [dated 26th October, 2012 in Ex.No.305/08/02 of the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge (ASCJ), (North), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi] of dismissal of two applications filed by the petitioner/judgment debtor, both under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). 2. The petition was entertained and notice thereof issued. On 9th April, 2013, the counsel for the respondent No.1/decree holder stated that he will not get the judgment and decree under execution executed. The said statement continues to bind the respondent No.1/decree holder. Resultantly, the execution proceedings before the ASCJ remain stayed. 3. The counsels have been heard. 4. The respondent No.1/decree holder, in or about the year 1993, instituted a suit against the petitioner/judgment debtor/Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) for (i) declaration that the services of the respondent No.1/decree holder stood regularised since 1st May, 1981; (ii) for a direction to the petitioner/MCD to regularise the services of the respondent No.1/decree holder since 1st May, 1981; (iii) for a direction to the petitioner / MCD to pay to respondent no.1 / decree- holder the entire consequential benefits arising out of such regularisation; and, (iv) for a direction to the petitioner/MCD to pay equal pay to the respondent No.1/decree holder as being paid to similarly situated employees of the petitioner/MCD. 5. The counsel for the petitioner/MCD states that the petitioner/MCD was proceeded against ex-parte in the said suit. 6. Vide judgment dated 1st September, 2001 in the aforesaid suit, being Suit No.683/1993 of the Court of Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Civil Judge, Delhi, the petitioner/MCD was directed to regularise the respondent No.1/decree holder since 1st May, 1991 and to pay the entire consequential benefits and to pay to the respondent No.1/decree holder equal pay as being paid to employees in similar position in the regular cadre. 7. The respondent No.1/decree holder filed execution impleading the petitioner/MCD as judgment debtor. 8. The petitioner/MCD filed the application under Section 151 CPC aforesaid inter alia pleading (i) that the respondent No.1/decree holder at the time of institution of the suit was working with Delhi Water Supply & Sewerage Disposal Undertaking of the petitioner/MCD; (ii) that the said Undertaking of the petitioner/MCD vide the Delhi Water Board Act, 1998 was vested with the Delhi Jal Board (DJB); (iii) that according to Section 46 of the said Act, all the employees of the said Undertaking also stood transferred to DJB; (iv) that the respondent No.1/decree holder also in pursuance to the said Act was now working with DJB and thus the liability to satisfy the decree was of DJB and not of the petitioner/MCD. 9. In the other application under Section 151 CPC, prayer was made for impleadment of DJB. 10. The learned ASCJ has vide the impugned order dismissed both the applications observing that the decree has to be executed as per its terms against the petitioner/MCD. It is also noted in the order that the petitioner/MCD has in part satisfaction of the decree already made some payments to the respondent No.1/decree holder. 11. Though no error can be found in the reasoning of the learned ASCJ of the Executing Court being bound to execute the decree as per its terms but the decree under execution in the present case is of regularisation of the respondent No.1/decree holder and for payment of consequential benefits to the respondent No.1/decree holder. Such a

Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.