DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. VIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has sought for quashing the impugned order dated 12th March, 2010 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in TA No. 508/ 2009 titled Vir Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation directing the Petitioner herein to re -designate the Respondent as Ticket Talley Clerk (TTC) w.e.f. 07.07.1992 with all consequences, as admissible in law.

(2.) THE material facts of the case are that the Respondent is employed with the Petitioner after he was selected for the post of driver vide memo No. PLD -II -I (5)/84/15527 dated 16.10.1984. The Respondent after undergoing the prescribed training was appointed as Retainer Crew Driver on 20.5.1985 at daily rates of pay and was thereafter appointed on probation at monthly wages for one year w.e.f. 1.12.1985 vide memo dated 05.08.1986. After successful completion of probation period he was confirmed in the regular post of Driver w.e.f. 30.11.1986 vide memo dated 02.12.1986. While discharging his duties as Driver he was declared medically unfit vide report No. AB/IPD/582 dated 23.08.1989 by the Medical Board of the Petitioner corporation. Subsequently an order bearing No. PLD -IV/Re -design/89/311 dated 11.01.1989 was passed with regard to the re -mustering of incapacitated employees. The said order stipulated that the incapacitated employees who are rendered unfit to perform duties of Driver and Conductor, be utilized by the units concerned with any duty other than the steering duty, like Gate duty, Distribution and ensuring of proper display of destination boards before the bus is out shaded ,till such time there cases for re -designation are finalized. In consonance with this order, the request of the Respondent was sought for re -designation vide letter No. PLD (E)/Re -designation/89/3686 dated 1.9.1989 issued by the Assistant Personnel Officer (East) of the Petitioner corporation and in the meanwhile the Petitioner decided to deploy the Respondent on some other duty till the case of the Respondent was finalized to re -designate him. Accordingly, a letter dated 26.9.1989 was issued to the Respondent seeking his un -qualifying consent to be considered for the post of TTC to which he replied in affirmative within the prescribed time limit as on 29.9.1989. Consequently, he was posted as TTC and was also utilized in other analogous posts such as Assistant Store Keeper, depending upon the need and urgency.

(3.) THE Petitioner corporation did not challenge the decree passed in favor of the Respondent. Rather in compliance with the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2002, the Petitioner vide letter No. YVD/PFC (Dr.)/2002/1933 dated 29.11.2002 issued by the Depot Manager passed the following order stating as under: