GIAN CHAND Vs. D T C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 30th July, 2009 passed in T.A No.674/2009 titled Sh.Gian Chand v. Union of India and Ors dismissing the petition of the petitioner declining the claim of the petitioner for the pay scale of heavy duty drivers as had been awarded to the employees of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi pursuant to the 4th Pay Commission from 1.1.1986.

(2.) The petitioner is working as a heavy vehicle driver and he filed a writ petition contending inter-alia that the heavy vehicle duty drivers are getting a pay scale of Rs.1200-2040/- pursuant to the 4th Pay Commission in Municipal Corporation of Delhi and, therefore, the same pay scales should be given to him.

(3.) The Tribunal has declined the relief to the petitioner on the inter alia on the ground that he has claimed a new pay scale under the 4th Pay Commission from 1st January, 1986 after 20 years in 2006 without any cogent and reliable explanation for delay. The Tribunal has also declined the relief to grant pay scale equivalent to the MCD drivers under the 4th Pay Commission on the ground that it was for the concerned body to accept the recommendations of a Pay Commission and the petitioner after 20 years cannot contend that the DTC ought to have accepted the recommendation in the same manner as the recommendation of 4th Pay Commission as applicable from 1st January, 1986 were accepted by Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The Tribunal has also noticed that an industrial dispute was raised by the respondent No.6/DTC Workers Union about the implementation of the recommendation of the 4th Pay Commission where an industrial award was passed which was challenged by the DTC in the High Court by filing W.P No.4684/1994 which was allowed and the award was set aside. The appeal filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge was also dismissed and the order of the Single Judge was upheld. The Principal bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal has also held that since the claim of the petitioner had been rejected on being raised by the workers union, the petitioner shall be bound by the outcome of the same and cannot raise the dispute independently now. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy in the facts and circumstances as to how the petitioner can claim the same relief which has already been declined to the workers union. In any case 20 years after the recommendation of 4th Pay Commission were accepted, the petitioner cannot be granted any such relief which is claimed by him.