Disposed

Manoj Kumar v. Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board and Ors.

Delhi HC9 Jan 2018W.P.(C)/217/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

a Civil Writ Petition wherein the petitioner sought backdated regularization of ad-hoc service with parity. The court disposed by directing the respondent to consider the parity aspect and pass a speaking order within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Permission to make a concise representation to the respondent within four weeks. Direction to the respondent to pass a speaking order within twelve weeks dealing with the parity aspect.

Manoj Kumar Vs Delhi Agricultural Marketing… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

Date of Order: January 09, 2018

¶3

W.P.(C) 217/2018

¶4

MANOJ KUMAR ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Javed Ahmed, Mr. Anis Ahmed and Mr. Syed Maria Aijaz, Advocates

¶6

Versus

¶7

DELHI AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD AND ORS.

¶8

.....Respondents Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

(ORAL)

¶13

Petitioner claims to have worked as Mali with respondent- Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘DAMB’) on ad-hoc basis w.e.f. 7^th August, 2001 till the date of his regularization i.e. 30^th November, 2005. The relief sought in this petition is that petitioner’s regularization be back dated from 7^th August, 2001 as it has been done in the case of Junior Engineers- G.U. Islam and Gulshan Lal.

¶14

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the Representation of 26^th May, 2014 (Annexure P-8) , petitioner had sought parity with the above-said two Junior Engineers while asserting that they have been regularized from the date of their initial appointment on ad-hoc basis and so, on parity basis, petitioner ought to be also regularized from the date of his appointment i.e. 7^th August, 2001.

¶15

Impugned Memorandum of 26^th September, 2016 (Annexure P-9) deals with petitioner’s Representations of 1^st June, 8^th September and 14^th

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

W.P.(C) 217/2018

¶18

September, 2016 but does not deal with petitioner’s earlier Representation of 26^th May, 2014 (Annexure P-8) . The reasons put forth in the impugned Memorandum (Annexure P-9) is that back date regularization of ad-hoc service w.e.f. 7^th August, 2001 cannot be acceded to as petitioner had worked for 89 days each time and after one day break, he was re-employed on ad-hoc basis. It is pertinent to note that the parity aspect has not been considered in impugned Memorandum (Annexure P-9) .

¶19

In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this petition with permission to petitioner to make a concise representation to respondent- DAMB within a period of four weeks from today, and with direction to respondent- DAMB to pass a speaking order on petitioner’s representation so received, within a period of twelve weeks from receipt thereof, while specifically dealing with the parity aspect. The fate of representation be made known to petitioner within two weeks thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedies as available in law, if need be.

¶20

Respondent- DAMB be apprised of this order forthwith to ensure its compliance.

¶21

With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.

¶22

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE

¶23

JANUARY 09, 2018 s

¶24

Page 2 of 2

¶25

W.P.(C) 217/2018

Manoj Kumar v. Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar v. Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board and 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

All India Central Ground Water Board Employees Associtaion Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sh. Subhash Chad Goyal Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Sh. Subhash Chand Goyal Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Pradeep Kumr Raghav Vs Telecommunication Consultants India Limited

Prem Prakash Sethi and Anr. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Sh. Sheelender Singh Vs Union of India and Anr.

Arun Kumar Goel Vs Union of India

Parivesh Kumar Vs Union of India & Anr.

Pradeep Kumr Raghav Vs Telecommunication Consultants India Limited

Shatrughan Singh and Ors. Vs Huousing and Urban Development Corporation Limted & Anr.

Anil Kumar Vs Delhi Public Library & Ors.

Rajiv Agawal Vs M/S Central Electronics Ltd.

Smt. Rani and Ors. Vs Punjab Academy and Ors.

Arun Kumar Goel Vs Union of India