In a writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court to challenge an order dated 30-10-2023 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi (CAT), whereby an Original Application filed by the petitioner was dismissed, a Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain dismissed the petition while clarifying that the petitioner would be entitled to his salary for the period that he worked even if such continuation was due to the interim order passed by the CAT.
The petitioner was appointed as a driver with the Delhi Transport Corporation in January 1983, and in 1986, he developed a defect in his eyesight. The Medical Board declared him medically unfit perform his duties, and he was prematurely retired from service. Aggrieved, the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute, and the Labour Court, Delhi, by an award dated 17-05-1999, held said premature retirement to be illegal and ordered the Delhi Transport Corporation to reinstate him with all consequential benefits.
The said award was challenged by the Delhi Transport Corporation in a writ petition, which was dismissed, and they further challenged this judgment in an appeal, which was also dismissed, with a direction to the respondent to offer the petitioner an alternative employment.
By an order dated 27-11-2000, the Delhi Transport Corporation appointed the petitioner as a peon and fixed his pay scale below that applicable to the post of driver. The petitioner challenged this by way of a writ petition, which was allowed. Accordingly, the respondent appointed the petitioner as a vehicle examiner, and in 2008, he was redesignated as a security guard with the pay scale applicable to the post of a driver.
By a letter dated 03-03-2014, the respondent informed the petitioner that he would have to undergo a medical fitness test for continuation in service as he was about to attain 55 years of age, and that in case he was found unfit, he would have to retire. The petitioner challenged this by filing an O.A., and the CAT passed an interim order restraining the respondent from retiring the petitioner from service. However, the O.A. was eventually dismissed, and a contempt petition filed for non-compliance with the interim order was also dismissed.
The Court stated that the only issue to be determined was whether the petitioner was deemed to have superannuated on 31-03-2014 upon attaining 55 years of age or on 30-08-2018, i.e., till the date the petitioner claimed to have discharged his duties. The Court said that since the order passed in the O.A. had attained finality as it had not been challenged, the petitioner could not claim that he was working at the post of a security guard for which the age of superannuation was 60 years.
While considering whether the petitioner’s service could be extended based on the interim order, the Court said that once the O.A. stood dismissed, no special benefit could have accrued to the petitioner based on the interim order, as had also been decided in various other cases.
Thus, the Court dismissed the petition, clarifying that the petitioner would be entitled to his salary for the period he actually worked for the Delhi Transport Corporation, even if it was due to the interim order, and directed that the respondent not recover any salary from the petitioner.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. S.N. Sharma, Mr. Rakesh Kumar
For Respondent – Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat
