MONA Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) YET another opportunity is sought by learned counsel for the respondent to file reply. We are not inclined to grant any further adjournment. Last opportunity was allowed to the respondent on November 15, 1995 to file reply within two weeks. Reply was not filed. On February 27, 1996 further indulgence was shown when four weeks further time was allowed, subject to payment of Rs. 1,000 as costs. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the order was communicated to the respondent but he has not received any response from respondents. Costs have also not been paid. In these circumstances we are proceeding on the basis of the averments made in the petition which. are duly supported by the petitioner on his own affidavit.

(2.) PETITIONER's father was gainfully ernploved as regular Beldar (Safai Karrnachari) with the respondent in Anti Malaria Department. Me died in harness on June 30, 1993. Had he not expired he was to remain with the respondent till 2001 A. D. A request was made by the petitioner for being given employment in place of his father on compassionate grounds, in accordance with the policy being followed by the respondents in that behalf Pending decision on the petitioners application, through order dated September 29, 1993 (Annexure P-3. petitioner was allowed to w ork as a substitute Safai Karamchari in place of his father. The order reads as under :<FRM>JUDGEMENT_5_ILRDLH1_1996Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) PETITIONER continued to work as a Safai Karmachari in place of his deceased father. On October 22, 1994 order annexure P-4 was served upon him conveying the decision of respondents, rejecting the petitioner's application on the ground that petitioner's case is not covered by the policy, the order dated October 27, 1994 (Annexure P4) which under challenge reads :<FRM>JUDGEMENT_5_ILRDLH1_1996Html2.htm</FRM>