Research › Browse › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 327 (DEL)

LAL CHAND v. LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR DELHI

1997-04-02

DALVEER BHANDARI

body1997
DALVEER BHANDARI ( 1 ) THE petitioned has preferred this writ petition in which it has been prayed that the order dated 16. 7. 1986 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Engg.) Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Engineering Department be quashed. ( 2 ) THE petitioner by the order dated 20. 2. 1995 was regularised in Div. lv w. e. f. 1. 4. 1982 against the post of Mason in the pay scale of Rs. 220-270 with usual allowances as admissible to the employees of MCD and terms and rules indicated in that letter. On 16. 7. 1986 the Assistant Commissioner (Engg.) passed the order by which the order regularising the petitioner was kept in. abeyance till further orders. ( 3 ) THE petitioner aggrieved by the said order filed this writ petition. This Court issued show cause notice on 16. 12,1987. Mrs. Tewatia, learned counsel appearing for the MCD submitted that the counter affidavit could not be filed in this case because the original records pertaining to the petitioner are not traceable in the MCD and despite their best efforts they could not locate those records. ( 4 ) MRS. Tewatia further submitted that in response to the notice only one letter has been handed over to her by the MCD. i. e. the letter dated 25. 7. 94. In the said letter itself it is mentioned that the petitioner was regularised w. e. f. 1. 4. 1982 and worked as regular Mason in Div.-IV in August, 1995. She also submitted that apart from this letter she has received no other document or instructions from the MCD and she cannot explain why the order regularising the services of the petitioner was kept in abeyance. The petitioner s sen ices were regularised from 1. 4. 1982 and the regularisation could not be kept in abeyance by subsequent order dated 16. 7. 1986 without any basis of any material on record. In any event this order could not be passed without any giving notice to the petitioner. ( 5 ) IN these circumstances, the petitioner has to be allowed and consequently the order dated "15. 7. 1986 in quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. The arrears shall be paid to him within two months from today. ( 6 ) IN the facts and circumstances of this case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs. Dasti.