LAWS(DLH)-2009-10-322

R.K. VERMA Vs. DTC

Decided On October 21, 2009
R.K. Verma Appellant
V/S
DTC Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER joined the Respondent as a Junior Clerk on 13th February, 1973. In the year 1974, Respondent created "Data Processing Cell". The posts of input -output Operator, Punch & Verifier Operator, Machine Operator, System Analyst and Data Processing Officer etc. in the said Data Processing Cell were filled amongst the existing employees of Respondent, having requisite qualification and experience. Petitioner was appointed as Punch & Verifier Operator, vide letter dated 2nd September, 1974. In the letter of appointment it was mentioned that he would be governed by the Factories Act, 1948 and the Labour Laws applicable to the industrial workers. Later on, he was promoted as Machine Operator with effect from 1st January, 1983. Subsequently, Respondent decided to wind up the Data Processing Cell and the staff working therein was directed to report to Deputy Purchase Officer in the store department. Vide letter dated 21st December, 1983, Petitioner was placed under the control of Controller of Stores and Purchase Officer. On 16th June 1984, Petitioner was relieved from Stores Department and was posted in Accounts Department (Head Quarters) of the Respondent.

(2.) AS per Regulation No. 14(6)(b) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment & Service) Regulations, 1952 (for short hereinafter referred to as "Regulations"), Clerical and Supervisory staff was entitled to the earned leave of 1/11 of the period of duty, as such Petitioner was entitled to the leave at this rate from the time of his initial appointment as a Junior Clerk. Subsequently, when the Petitioner was appointed in the "Data Processing Cell" his leave was to be governed by the leave rules as applicable to the industrial workers and he was entitled to leave at the rate of 1/30 of the duty performed. However, the Petitioner continued to avail the leave benefits in terms of Regulation No. 14(6)(b) of the Regulations, even after his appointment in Data Processing Cell. Due to the mistake, Respondent also continued to grant leave to the Petitioner at the rate of 1/11 of the working days.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved by this order dated 19th September 2007, Petitioner filed a writ petition, which was subsequently transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") and was registered as TA No. 66/2009 and has been disposed of by the Tribunal vide its order dated 1st July, 2009.