SATYA DEV TOMAR Vs. MCD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is filed as against the judgment and order dated 7th May, 2004 passed by the learned Single judge in WP (C) No. 1548/1999. The said writ petition was filed by some Assistant Engineers (Civil) working with the respondent-Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short MCD) seeking issuance of mandamus to the MCD to treat the writ petitioners as Assistant Engineer (Civil)with effect from the date they were entrusted current duty charge to the said post and with consequential benefits. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by passing the following order:-It is not disputed that petitioners in W. P. 3091/1997 were identically placed to the petitioners herein. In said view of the matter, directions are issued to the MCD that service rendered by the petitioners on current duty charge will be counted towards their service for determining their eligibility for promotion to the next higher post. Needful be done in six weeks. Writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid order the present appeal is filed by the appellants on the ground that the impugned order passed by the learned Single judge adversely affects their interest for promotion to the next higher post of executive Engineer. However, at this stage, we may mention that the appellants herein are direct recruits to the post of Assistant Engineer in MCD and were not party to the above writ petition.

(3.) COUNSEL appearing for the respondents raised an objection with regard to maintainability of the appeal contending, inter alia, that the appellants were not parties in the writ petition and, therefore, if they were in any manner aggrieved they should have filed a review application before the learned Single judge instead of coming in appeal. However, since we heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties on merit, we proceed to dispose of the appeal without going into the aforesaid issue. Even otherwise, in our considered opinion, such an appeal could be filed by the appellants although they were not parties in the writ petition. A 'person aggrieved' is a person who has been deprived of a benefit which he would have received if the order had been contrary to what it actually is, or an order which causes him a legal grievance by wrongfully depriving him of something. In this regard we may also refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M. V. Dabholkar reported in reported in (1975) 2 SCC 702, wherein it is stated that : 28. Where a right of appeal to courts against an administrative or judicial decision is created by statute, the right is invariably confined to a person aggrieved or a person who claims to be aggrieved. The meaning of the words a person aggrieved may vary according to the context of the statute. One of the meanings is that a person will be held to be aggrieved by a decision if that decision is materially adverse to him. Normally, one is required to establish that one has been denied or deprived of something to which one is legally entitled in order to make one a person aggrieved. . . . . . . . . . . .