C R CHAWLA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present intra Court Appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent has been filed by four employees (hereinafter referred to as the appellants, for short) of the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as respondent, for short) against the judgment dated 5th October, 2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1768/88. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has held that the initial pay fixation of the appellants shall be under Fundamental Rule 22-B and thereafter their pay would be fixed under the normal Rules.

(2.) THE appellants were earlier working as Junior Engineers in Central public Works Department (hereinafter referred to as CPWD, for short ). They applied through proper channel for appointment as Junior Engineers in the respondent-DDA. After selection the appellants were appointed as Junior engineers with the respondent but were asked to give an undertaking that they shall not claim benefit of past service in CPWD. The undertaking was given by the appellants.

(3.) AFTER some time, the appellants made a representation for fixation of their pay under Fundamental Rule 22 by giving them benefit of their past service. The representation was rejected and aggrieved, the appellants along with some others had filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1768/1988 titled G. R. Chawla and others v. Delhi Development Authority and another. In the impugned judgment, the learned single Judge has observed that the principal issue that arose for consideration was whether Fundamental Rule 22 or 22-B was applicable to the facts of the present case. Relying upon the undertakings given by the appellants and the fact that the appellants were initially appointed on probation, it was held by the learned Single Judge that Fundamental Rule 22 would not be applicable and provisions of fundamental Rule 22-B would be applicable.