AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Gita Mittal, J
This writ petition has been filed by Sh. Dukhabandhu Roul who has stated in the writ petition that he is an employee of the respondent no.3 i.e. the
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (hereafter ‘DMRC’). The co-petitioner, Sh. Ravikant is admittedly a member of the housekeeping staff of the
respondent no.3.
Along with the writ petition, the petitioners have enclosed investigations conducted by the DMRC into complaints/grievances made by the
petitioners. Upon such investigation, the following has been recommended :
“i) It is proposed to initiate Disciplinary proceedings against all concerned (present &/or previous SM and SCs of NHSP Metro Station)
after due scrutiny by the DA.
ii) For manipulating/overwriting/changes of pages in housekeeping format of NSHP Metro Station (from January, 2016 till August, 2016), it
is proposed to penalize the agency for lapses done at their end. The penalization may be proportional to the increase in shifts by the
nominated person.
iii) Dress code 9with logo) of Team Leader, Manager and Supervisors of Housekeeping Agency should be similar as that of Housekeepers.
iv) The responsibility of renewal of station permit cards of housekeepers shall be of housekeeping agency and housekeeping staff should
not be permitted entry without valid entry permit cards unless there are justified reasons.
v) Housekeeping formats of concerned Stations may also be cross-checked by line managers during their inspections.
vi) Though housekeeping contract management procedure is reviewed time to time however it may further be reviewed to improve services
and to take preventive checks to curb the possibilities of corrupt practices.
vii) Shri Duhbandhu Roul may be suitably taken up for not following the hierarchy and escalating issues, without authentic proofs and
without finishing the department channel. Further it is also observed that as a shift in-charge he has failed to supervise the activities of
station.â€
We are informed by the learned counsels for the petitioners that it is because of his complaints that the petitioner no.1 is being penalized. This
assertion may entitle the petitioner to maintain a challenge to the disciplinary action but certainly does not justify the institution of the present writ
petition claimed to have been filed in public interest.
The writ petitioners in the instant case, in our view, are seeking redressal of private grievances by way of what has been couched as a public
interest litigation. The same is completely impermissible in law.
This writ petition and applications are therefore dismissed.
It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions.