Ndmc Auto Workshop Employees Association Vs Rajendra Prasad Sati , Diretor New Delhi Municipal Corporation

$~34

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- CONT.CAS(C) 374/2019

N.D.M.C. AUTO WORKSHOP EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber and Mr. Anshuman Mehrotra, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

RAJENDRA PRASAD SATI , DIRECTOR, NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL .....Respondent Through: Ms. Zubeda Begum, SC with Mr. Tushar Sannu, Ms. Ishita Mohanty and Ms. Ishika Jain, Advocates.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA O R D E R

¶9

% 06.01.2026

¶10

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶11

The present petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeks the following prayers:

¶12

<(a) initiate contempt proceedings against the Contemnor /Respondent for the wilful and intentional non implementation of the order dated 04.10.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Court.

¶13

(b) pass any such orders which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts & circumstances narrated herein above in favour of the Petitioners and against the Contemnor/Respondent.=

¶14

Vide judgment dated 12.07.2010 in TA No. 280/2009 and TA No. 943/2009, the learned CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi passed the following directions:

¶15

<10. In the above view of the matter, we hold that the applicants are entitled in both the TAs to the revised pay scales, as

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/01/2026 at 11:18:13

¶18

recommended by the S.S. Committee, and revised in the case of their counterparts in DVB/DESU, with arrears from the date of scales have been allowed to the applicants in the form of only pay scale in pursuance of the decision of the Apex Court in Narender Kumar’s case (supra). The same shall be disbursed, on implementation, to the applicants, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.=

¶19

Subsequently, the aforesaid order was challenged by the respondent/NDMC in W.P.(C) 340/2011 and connected matter and vide judgement dated 04.10.2018, the learned Division Bench while dismissing the aforesaid petition passed the following order:

¶20

It is apparent from the factual narrative that S.S. Committee was constituted undoubtedly to address the pay scales concern and the anomalies which then existed in the-erstwhile DESU/DVB: to that extent, the NDMC has a point. But the matter does not stop here. The pay scales which the DESU/DVB granted to its employees on various dates in the years 1974, 1986 etc. fueled unrest in other organisations. One such is erstwhile New Delhi Municipal Committee, the employment to which the present respondents and other class belong. Their grievance led NDMC i.e. the petitioners before the court adopting SS Committee's recommendations with respect to various cadres. Thus, parity was something that the NDMC itself recognized and gave effect to entirely on the basis of SS Committee. Having done that at the time of fitment and fixation in the later pay scales, which were prescribed for various classes of posts in implementation of pay Commission's recommendation arose, the NDMC could not have - consistent that its past conduct, ignore the previous parity and refuse to accord the replacement scales. Both the orders of the CAT - though they deal with the different cadre in the NDMC, are premised upon the logic i.e. parity once established, cannot be ignored except for good and valid reasons. No reasons were forthcoming in either of the proceedings which the respondent/applicants initiated before the CAT, to justify disparity which had ensued on account of erroneous implementation of 6^th Pay Commission's recommendations. Consequent directions by the CAT were therefore reasonable and justified. The conclusions in the impugned order are sound and therefore, do not call for any interference by this Court. The

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/01/2026 at 11:18:13

¶23

petitioners are therefore directed to give effect to CAT's orders within ten weeks from today and pass individual pay fixation and fitment orders.=

¶24

Subsequent thereto, in pursuance of the aforesaid directions a speaking order dated 28.11.2023 was passed by the respondent/NDMC, with respect to the members of the petitioner-association, and the same is reproduced as under: -

¶25

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/01/2026 at 11:18:13

¶26

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner-association that some of the members of the petitioner-association have been denied time bound promotions by the respondents/NDMC in the following manner:-

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/01/2026 at 11:18:13

¶29

Sh. Surender Kumar	- Ought to have been promoted
	to Foreman in the year 2000 but was promoted in the year 2005 and was denied 3th time bound promotion which was due in 2008. - Was given next available pay scale instead of next promotional pay scale at the time of 2nd time bound promotion in the year 2000.
Sh. Arun David	- Ought to have been promoted to Foreman (Auto) in the year 1997 but was promoted in the year 2005 and was denied 3rd time bound promotion. - 2nd time bound promotion was to be given in the pay scale of INR 6,500-10,900, w.e.f. 2004, instead was given in the pay scale of INR 6,000- 10,800.
Sh. Tejinder Singh	- Ought to have been promoted to Foreman in the year 2000 but was promoted in the year 2005 and was denied 3rd time bound promotion due in 2008. - Was given the next available pay scale, instead of the next promotional pay scale at the time of 2nd time bound promotion in the year 2000.
Sh. R.K. Jain	- Ought to have been promoted to Foreman (Auto) in the year 1997 but was promoted in 2007 and was denied 3rd time bound promotion. - 2nd time bound promotion

¶30

This is a digitally signed order.

¶31

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/01/2026 at 11:18:13

¶32

was to be given in the pay scale of INR 6500-10900, w.e.f. 2004, instead was given in the pay scale of INR 6,000- 10,800.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner-association, on instructions of the latter, does not wish to press the present petition, with liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings with respect to the issue of time bound promotion of the remaining members of the petitioner-association before the Court of competent jurisdiction/appropriate forum, in accordance with law.

¶34

The present petition is disposed of as not pressed.

¶35

Needless to state that the petitioner will be at liberty to take recourse with respect to the aforesaid contention as permissible in law before the Court of competent jurisdiction/appropriate forum.

¶36

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶37

AMIT SHARMA, J

¶38

JANUARY 06, 2026/bsr/db

¶39

This is a digitally signed order.

¶40

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/01/2026 at 11:18:13

Ndmc Auto Workshop Employees Association v. Rajendra Prasad Sati , Diretor New Delhi Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ndmc Auto Workshop Employees Association v. Rajendra Prasad Sati , Diretor New Delhi Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Daljit Kumar & Ors. Vs Sri. Anshu Prakash & Ors.

Vidya Parkash Gupta, Age 74 Years, & Ors. Vs Sri. Anshu Prakash & Ors.

Skycom and Anr. Vs Shri Ashwani Kumar and Ors.

Nibedita Ghose Vs National Medical Commission

Saba Hassan Vs Vishal Pal Singh, the Commsissioner of Customs

Shivam Dhingra Vs Samiksha Ahuja and Anr.

Federation of Nehru Place Associations Vs Urmila Devi & Ors.

Anand Pratap Singh and Ors. Vs Shri Govind Mohan and Ors.

Daljit Kumar & Ors. Vs Sri. Anshu Prakash & Ors.

Vidya Parkash Gupta, Age 74 Years, & Ors. Vs Sri. Anshu Prakash & Ors.

Saurabh Bhardwaj & Ors. Vs Directorate General of Resettlement & Ors.

Surinder Verma Vs Suresh Kumar Gupta

Surinder Verma Vs Suresh Kumar Gupta

Umesh Nanda Vs Depinder Singh Dhesi & Anr.