UDAY SINGH Vs. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition was preferred praying for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the concerned authorities of Damodar Valley Corporation (in short, DVC) to extend the benefits of GPF as well as coverage under the old pension scheme governed by the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 (in short, the Pension Rules, 1972) with effect from their date of joining in DVC i.e. from 1986 in place of National Pension Scheme (in short, NPS) adopted by DVC in terms of Office Memorandum dtd. 22/10/2020 and fix the petitioners' pay and release their arrear salaries w.e.f. 31/3/2010 in terms of the order dtd. 4/11/2019 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(Civil) no. 26224-26225/2019 and SLP(Civil) No. 26226-26227of 2019.

(2.) The case has a chequered history and hence, before going to delve into the contour of the controversy hovers around the writ petition, it would be profitable to advert to the necessitous facts frescoed in the writ petition. The petitioners joined in various departments of DVC in between 1985 to 1986 as casual workers (highly skilled category) against sanctioned posts/vacancies pursuant to an order issued by the Deputy Director of Personnel and Ex-Officio Under-Secretary of DVC. In 1986, the competent authority of DVC publish a combined panel of 111 casual workers belonging to General, SC, ST and OBC candidates and the names of the petitioners appeared against serial nos. 85, 92, 89, 95 and 81 respectively in the panel. In 1988, another panel of 11 casual workers belonging to only SC and ST candidates were published.

(3.) In 2001, some casual workers including the petitioner nos. 1 to 4 herein moved a writ petition being W.P. no. 8747(W) of 2001 before this Court inter alia praying for direction for their regularization in Group-D or other equivalent posts. By an order dtd. 6/7/2001, the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court directing the concerned authorities of DVC to decide the representation within the time specified in therein. Accordingly, the Chairman passed an order dtd. 1/11/2001 indicating that 74 empanelled casual workers had been appointed at the Headquarters of DVC on the basis of 1:1 quota and the case of regularization of the rest 37 empanelled casual workers would be considered against future vacancies. In 2007, challenging inaction on the part of the concerned authorities of DVC to absorb the casual workers in existing vacancies, a writ petition being W.P. no. 20139(w) of 2007 was instituted which was disposed of by an order dtd. 26/1/2009 holding inter alia that a substantial numbers of listed casual workers had been given regular employment and a small numbers of casual workers were waiting for that benefit and accordingly, the Chairman concerned was asked to consider the case of regular employment of the petitioners therein within the time stipulated therein.