BIJENDER SINGH Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment I shall dispose of all above Writ Petitions. The WP(C) Nos. 4542/2005, 3015-16/2005, 1721/2005, 1234-36/2005 have been filed by the workmen challenging the various similar orders whereby the workmen were transferred from the present division to another division and were asked to do the work of the post on which they were appointed. The WP (C) Nos. 1806-09/2004 and 12784-91/2004 have been filed by the workmen against the award whereby the claim of the workmen to be regularised as LDCs was dismissed by the Tribunal. The WP (C) Nos. 5140/2003, 11813/2004, 4993/2000 have been filed by DDA against the award whereby the DDA was directed to regularise the respondents as LDCs and was directed to pay the arrears of pay and give scale of LDCs to the respondents.

(2.) The brief facts which gave rise to all these writ petitions are that a number of workmen were appointed as daily wager, muster roll employees, beldars, malis and on other class IV posts, long back at different periods of time. These beldars, malis etc. who were initially muster roll/daily wagers were regularised in the post of mali and beldar under the directions of this Court or as a result of awards passed by Tribunal or as a result of scheme formulated by the DDA under the directions of this Court or Supreme Court. A large number of workmen of class IV thus got recruited by way of regularisation who were engaged by DDA for work exigencies or for different projects, these could not be disengaged due to stay orders given by Courts. However, with projects coming to an end the DDA could not found manual work for them and assigned them the jobs which were available in DDA. Many such workmen were asked to do the clerical work, because they were capable of doing the clerical work. These workmen were having regular posts of malis, beldars and security guards and were put on clerical work in different departments of DDA per force as otherwise these workmen had to be paid salaries without work and kept idle at the cost of public exchequer. These workmen after doing clerical nature of work raised a dispute that now they have become entitled to be regularised as clerks and so, these disputes were referred for adjudication to Labour Courts/Tribunals. The Tribunals in some cases passed awards that they should be paid pay equal to that of LDCs and regularized, in some cases the awards were passed only of equal pay and they were held not entitled for regularisation. Some cases are those where the order of the DDA removing them from work of clerk and posting them as malis, security guards and beldars have been challenged.

(3.) These cases and other similar cases show a strange phenomenon. A number of people enter into the DDA, MCD and other similar departments through approach and contacts as Class IV employees on muster roll basis or daily wages basis. These employees then raise an industrial dispute about their regularisation on the post of malis, beldars etc. and in the past i.e. before Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi (3) and Ors. 2006 (4) SCC 1 case, they have been getting regularised due to different Court orders on the basis of length of service. None of these persons have been recruited in accordance with the recruitment rules. All these persons are back door entrants into the department. After their regularisation as Class IV employees despite back door entry then, they have approached the Courts for their regularisation as Class III employees. The plea taken is that they fulfill the qualification of Class III employees and have been assigned the work of Class III employees and have been doing this work as clerk for quite long time, therefore, they are entitled for the pay scale of the clerks as well as regularisation in the post of clerk.