G R CHAWLA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The present petition is filed by the petitioners seeking for a direction to the respondent to give to the petitioners the benefit of pay fixation and seniority on the basis of the past service rendered by the petitioners in accordance with the mandate of the Government of India's order dated 17/6/1965 issued under the provisions of Fundamental Rule 22. The petitioners also seeK for quashing of certain orders issued by respondents 1 & 2 as specifically mentioned in relief (1) of the prayer of the writ petition whereby the aforesaid relief for pay fixation and seniority on the basis of past seivice way denied to the petitioners by the respondents.

(2.) . The petitioners 1 to 8 were initiailly appointed to the post of Junior Engineers in Central Public works Department whereas petitioner No.9 was appointed as a Section Officer in Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation and thereafter he was promoted to the pust of Junior Engineer in the said establishment. Subsequently on different dates the petitioners through proper channel applied to respondent No.1 for the posts of Junior Engineer in the same scale of pay which the petitioners were earlier getting in CPWD and DSIDC. Putsuant to the aforesaid applications the petitioners were called by respondent No.1 and they were selected and appointed to the posts of Junior Engineers on different dates. It is stated in the petition that at the time of joining with respondents the petitioners were drawing an increased salary as per increments given to them by Lhe Central Public works Department. The letters of appointment by which the respondents appointed the petitioners have been placed on record.

(3.) . The aforesaid appointment letters issued to the petitioners have relevance in the context of the submissions of the counsel appealing fur the parties and therefore, it would be necessary to deal with the same at this stage itself. Various appointment letters issued to ail the petitioners have been placed on record. However, they areall identical, and therefore, reference to one of them for the purpose of this case, in my considered opinion would suffice. Annexure 'A' is one uf such appointment letters issued on 5/7/1983 in favour of petitioner No.1. It is stated in the said letter that the respondents offered to petitioner No.1 a temporary post of Junior Engineer in the pay scale of Rs. 425.00-700.00. It was stated that the said appointment of petitioner No.1 is on probation for a period of 2 years which was liable to be extended by the appointing authority for a period and subject to the condition that he would qualify in a departmental examination in accounts within the aforesaid per iod failing which he would not be allowed to draw the next increment nor considered for fur ther promotion. It was also stated that the other conditions of service would be governed by other rules and orders in force from time to time. By the aforesaid letter it was also stipulated that an under taking to the effect that he/she would not claim any benefit of his/her past service, shall also have to be fur rushed by the concerned persons. It was further stated that if the petitioner No.1 accepts the aforesaid offer on the aforesaid Lerms he should report for duty by 28/8/1988. It appears that all the petitioners accepted the aforesaid terms and conditions of the appointment and also furnished an undertaking to the effect that they would not claim any benefit of their past service. However, subsequent thereto some of the petitioners submitted representations to the respondents for protection of their pay. All the aforesaid representations which were filed by some of the petitioners were however, rejected and therefore, the present petition is filed in this court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.