Anil Kumar vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Others

R.N. Singh, Member (J)

In the present Original Application, the applicant has raised his grievance about non-inclusion of his name in the final seniority list of regular Safaikaramchari issued on 6.12.2016 and for not considering him for promotion to the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector vide Office Order dated 3.3.2017 passed by the respondent no.2.

We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

The undisputed facts are that the applicant was appointed as Safaikaramchari with respondent No.1 in the year 1995. The applicant was also regularised w.e.f. 1.4.2003 with various other similarly placed persons. The respondents have issued a provisional seniority list on 11.2.2014. However, his name was not included therein. The applicant is stated to have made a representation dated 6.8.2015 to the respondents requesting therein for inclusion of his name in the said seniority list.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a modified provisional seniority list dated 15.9.2016 for regular Safaikaramchari. However, again the applicant's name was not included in the said list. The final seniority list of the regular Safaikaramchari was issued on 6.12.2016 and the applicant's name has been missing in the said list as well.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that once the applicant has been regularised w.e.f. 1.4.2003 with various other similarly placed persons, there was no reason or justification for the respondents in not including his name in the provisional seniority list of regular Safaikaramchari dated 11.2.2014 and/or modified provisional seniority list dated 15.9.2016 and that too in spite of his representation dated 6.8.2015.

In para 4.3 of the counter reply filed by the respondents to the OA, the only defence has been taken by the respondents that in spite of opportunity accorded vide modified provisional seniority list dated 15.09.2016, the applicant has not preferred any objection and he could make the representation only on 28.12.2016 and, therefore, the name of the applicant's claim for inclusion of his name in the final seniority list could not be considered.

We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and we have also perused the pleadings on record. Once it is not in dispute that the applicant has been regularised w.e.f. 1.4.2003 with various other similarly placed persons and when his name did not appear in the provisional seniority list of regular Safaikaramchari dated 11.2.2014 and the applicant preferred a representation dated 6.8.2015, we find no reason or justification for the respondents not to include the applicant's name in the modified provisional seniority list of regular Safaikaramchari.

In the facts and circumstances, it hardly matter whether the applicant has again made a representation or not pursuant to the modified provisional seniority list of regular Safaikaramchari dated 15.9.2016. Moreover, the applicant has admittedly made a representation dated 6.8.2015 for inclusion of his name in the final seniority list of regular Safaikaramchari. In the facts and circumstances, it would have been just and proper for the respondents to consider and dispose of the same taking into account all material facts and the relevant instructions on the subject. No other point has been argued on behalf of the parties in the OA.

In the facts and circumstances, the present OA is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the applicant's aforesaid representation dated 28.12.2016 and to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible and in any case within eight weeks of receipt of a copy of this Order. It is further ordered that if on such consideration, the applicant's position in the seniority list of regular Safaikaramchari is improved and it is found that any junior of the applicant has been promoted, the respondents are directed to consider the applicant also for such promotion and consequential benefits in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions on the subject as expeditiously as possible and in any case within three months from the date of the order to be passed by the respondents on the claim of the applicant about his seniority.

The present OA is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to cost.