DINESH CHAND Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by 4 petitioners who are all Working in Slum and JJ (Wing) which was, at material time, with DDA. This wing is not transferred to MCD. Admittedly they were initially appointed as muster roll employees on daily wages. Subsequently, they were made work-charged employees and were designated as mates/Beldars etc. The petitioners filed this case alleging that for last more than five years they were performing the duties of Lower Division Clerk without any break. However they were still treated as work-charged and benefit of regularisation of their services as LDCs was not given to them although regular vacancies of LDCs existed with the respondents. It is further stated that petitioners are educationally qualified for the post of LDCs. Taking undue advantage of their weak position being unemployed, petitioners were taken by the respondents as work-charged basis although they are entrusted with the duties of LDCs. It is further alleged in the writ petition that many persons who are juniors to the petitioners have been regularised as LDCs ignoring the claim of the petitioners. On the basis of these basic averments petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking direction to the effect that petitioners be treated as regular LDCs from the date they have been discharging the duties of LDCs and they may also be given the pay in the regular scale of LDCs i.e. Rs. 260.00-400.00 (pre-revised).

(2.) This petition was listed for the first time, for admission, on 16.12.1987 when notice to show cause was issued to the respondents. Thereafter matter was taken up from time-to-time and ultimately on 12.5.1989 rule was issued in the writ petition. Petitioners had also filed CMs 5022/87 & 1173/88. They were disposed of by passing the following order: In the answer to the show cause notice, it is stated that the petitioners were given an opportunity to appear in the test for the post of L.D.C. which was held from April 11, 1987 to April 13,1987 alongwith other work-charged employees but the petitioners did not qualify. In the subsequent test all the four petitioners appeared in the departmental test held on October 9, 1988 for the post of L.D.C. and were declared successful. They have been promoted to the post of L.D.C. vide order dated November 18,1988. Whether the petitioners are entitled to be appointed on regular basis with retrospective effect or whether they are entitled to the wages of an L.D.C. though appointed as work-charged employee, is a question which can only be determined on the merits of the writ petition. No interim relief can be granted at this stage. Dismissed.

(3.) From the aforesaid order, it is clear that during the pendency of this writ petition, petitioners have been appointed as LDCs after they passed departmental test which was held on October 9,1988. The only question which is to be determined now as to whether they are entitled to be appointed on regular basis with retrospective effect and whether they are entitled to the wages of an LDC though appointed as work-charged mates/Beldars, etc.