Dismissed

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Arjun Singh & Ors.

Delhi HC16 Aug 2011LPA/327/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi challenging a review order directing payment of salary to ten seasonal Domestic Breeding Checkers for a specific non-transmission period.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay salary to ten workers for the period 01.12.2006 to 23.04.2007, total Rs. 1,61,688/-. Issue regarding entitlement during non-transmission season kept open.

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Arjun Singh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2011)

¶1

$~19.

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- LPA 327/2010

¶4

Date of order: 16^th August, 2011

¶5

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Appellant Through Ms. Madhu Tewatia & Ms. Sidhi Arora, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

ARJUN SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Ms. Anusuya Salwan & Ms. Renuka Arora, Advocates.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

¶10

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

¶13

SANJIV KHANNA, J.:

¶14

The appellant-Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and Domestic Breeding Checkers have been involved in multifarious litigations. In the present writ petition, a very limited issue arises for consideration with regard to payment of salary.

¶15

MCD submits that Domestic Breeding Checkers are employed purely on seasonal and contractual basis for the purpose of educating and preventing breeding of Aedes mosquitoes in water coolers and artificial containers. They educate citizens by ways and means to check breeding of mosquitoes in containers, water coolers and wherever water

¶16

accumulates. It is further stated that the MCD maintains a seniority list and appointments of Domestic Breeding Checkers is made strictly in terms of seniority as reflected in the said list.

¶17

Domestic Breeding Checkers had filed W.P. (C) No. 171/2006 claiming regularization of their seasonal employment. By an interim order status quo was directed to be maintained but ultimately the writ petition was dismissed. During the period when the status quo order was in operation, the Domestic Breeding Checkers were not paid any salary.

¶18

Aggrieved, they filed W.P. (C) No. 1036/2008, which was disposed of vide order dated 16^th September, 2008 recording the statement of the counsel for the MCD that monthly emoluments for the period 1^st December, 2006 to 23^rd April, 2007 shall be paid, if not already paid, within two weeks. The appellant-MCD thereafter filed Review Application No. 249/2009, inter alia, pleading that the statement made by their counsel was without instructions and there was no assignment of work to the Domestic Breeding Checkers from 1^st December, 2006 to 23^rd April, 2007. It was also alleged that the said workers were allowed to mark their presence in the attendance register and the movement register in the light of the status quo order but they are not entitled to salary.

¶19

The application has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 6^th November, 2009 recording various reasons. The impugned order records the averments made in the affidavit of Deputy M.H.O. (Malaria & OVBD, who in paragraphs 5 and 6 had stated as under:

¶20

“5. In this instant case the Malaria Inspectors have allowed the 10 DBCs to put their attendance and to fill up the movement register on account of the orders of this Hon’ble Court. However most of the inspector have not verified the daily work of DBCs as there was no scientific work, the temperature not being conducive for Aedes breeding. None the less all these DBCs have not detected any breeding of Aedes mosquito from 1-12-06 to 23-4-07 when they are meant for checking breeding. There is no Notice or challan issued in response to any breeding report of all these 10 DBCs from 1-12-06 to 23-4-07. All these 10 DBCs have mentioned in their movement that they are stenciling the house in a self styled manner i.e. they are surveying the number of houses in their assigned locality daily w.e.f. 1-12-06 to 23-4-07. Stenciling is done by DBCs while visiting any house and a DBC is to check 50 houses daily. These DBCs have done stenciling as claimed by them but no breeding was detected from 1-12-06 to 23-407. As a matter of fact these 10 DBCs want to stretch there seasonal scientific requirement for 6-7 months from May to November to a whole year exercise even if not scientifically justified there being no work at all.

¶21

The petitioners have filled the attendance forms on their own but the fact of

¶22

the matter is that since there is actually no work during the non-transmission period for the DBCs the said DBCs have not worked during the said no-work/non-transmission season therefore there is no scientific justification to pay the DBCs for the period when there is no scientific need.”

¶23

Once it is admitted that the attendance was marked, it is difficult to perceive and accept that the workers had not reported for duty. It is also mentioned in the affidavit that the workers had filled up the movement register. Admittedly there was a status quo order and the respondent had complied with the same. Moreover, it is noticed that the total amount involved is Rs.1,61,688/-, which is to be paid to the ten workers. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. It is clarified that the issue relating to the status of seasonal workers/Domestic Breeding Checkers and their entitlement beyond the working season are kept open. No costs.

¶24

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

¶25

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶26

AUGUST 16, 2011 VKR

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Arjun Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Arjun Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bal Kishan & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Managing Committee of Daisy Dales Sr Secondary School & Anr. Vs Rajinder Singh Malik & Anr.

Legum and Law Awareness Society Vs UOI

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Monoflex India P.Ltd. & an

State of Uttarakhand through Principal Secretary and Anr. Vs Ajay Kumar and Ors.

Ajay Kumar Joshi Vs UOI and Ors.