AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
In the instant OA filed under Section – 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants seek the following reliefs :
“8.1direct the respondents to treat the applicant similarly with the employees of the Civil Appeal No183 of 2016 [arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 10348 of 2009] and Civil Appeal No. 184-186 of 2016 [arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 35202-35204 of 2009] and consequently direct the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to grant all the benefits and consequential benefits (like back wages, seniority, pay-fixations, increments with the consequential re-fixation of the entitlements of the Applicants for the grant of retiral benefits) in terms of the order/judgment dated 12/01/2016 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No183 of 2016 [arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 10348 of 2009] and Civil Appeal No. 184-186 of 2016 (arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 35202-35204 of 2009] after holding the order dated 04/01/2017 passed by the Respondent No. 1 to be nullity being in contravention of the order/judgment dated 12/01/2016 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No183 of 2016 [arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 10348 of 2009] and Civil Appeal No. 184-186 of 2016 [arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 35202-35204 of 2009],
8.2Pass other order(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicant, i.e., Mr. Harbhajan Singh (since deceased) had earlier filed T.A. No. 202/2009 before this Tribunal, which was dismissed on 05.06.2009 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 09.01.2009 passed in various matters including LPA No. 1251/2007, against which the applicant had filed W.P.(C) No. 28/2010 before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the said Writ Petition was also dismissed on 06.01.2010 on account of the judgment dated 09.01.2009 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in various matters including LPA No. 1251/2007. There-against, the applicant, i.e., Late Mr. Harbhajan Singh had filed S.L.P.(C) No. 8740/2010 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India which was also dismissed on 26.11.2010.
Thereafter, Late Mr. Harbhajan Singh came to know about the judgment dated 12.01.2016 in CA No. 183/2016 with CA No. 184-186/2016 titled Ram Phal vs. Delhi Transport Corporation with Trilochan Singh vs. Delhi Transport Corporation passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India whereby the judgment dated 09.01.2009 [passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in various matters including LPA No. 1251 of 2007] was set-aside and the similarly situated persons were granted the benefits and accordingly the applicant, i.e., Late Mr. Harbhajan Singh had preferred a representation dated 19.10.2016 before the competent authority amongst the respondents. The said representation was rejected vide order dated 04.01.2017.
Resultantly, Late Mr. Harbhajan Singh had filed an application dated 28.07.2017 on 01.08.2017 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P.(C) No. 8740 of 2010 for seeking the benefits arising out of the order dated 12.01.2016 but the said application could not be adjudicated upon due to the fact that the paper books of the S.L.P.(C) No. 8740 of 2010 were weeded out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and accordingly he was directed to file the copies of the said paper books but he could not secure/procure the copies of the said paper books despite the lapse of more than 2 years due to the fact that the same were not found to be traceable in the office of the earlier counsel of the applicant who had died in the meantime. In view of the aforesaid developments, Late Mr. Harbhajan Singh has approached this Tribunal for initiating the proceedings afresh for seeking the reliefs in terms of the order dated 12.01.2016 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
Based on the analogy of the judgment dated 12.01.2016 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Phal (supra) with Trilochan Singh (supra), learned counsel for the applicants by drawing a reference and placing reliance upon the said judgment, seeks similar benefits in favour of the applicants. mainly on the following grounds :
The TA filed by Late Mr. Harbhajan Singh was dismissed on the basis of the LPA No. 1251/2007 decided on 09.01.2009 and vide order dated 12.01.2016 in the case of Ram phal (supra) with Trilochan Singh (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has set aside the judgment dated 09.01.2009 in LPA No. 1251/2007.
An order was already passed in Writ Petition 3015/1999 in favour of Late Mr. Harbhajan Singh and as such the respondents could not have terminated him after attaining the age of 55 years.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that it is not in dispute that Late Mr. Harbhajan Singh suffered from injury and was allowed to continue as a Driver till the age of 55 years though he was performing the duties of Vehicle Examiner.
Countering the argument put forth by the learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Phal (supra) with Trilochan Singh (supra) cannot be applied in the facts and circumstances of the present case inasmuch as the applicants therein were a party in LPA No. 1251/2007 and the applicant, i.e., Late Mr. Harbhajan Singh was not a party to it and hence, the applicant (since deceased) would not derive any benefit of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Phal (supra) with Trilochan Singh (supra).
Learned counsel for the respondents would state that in earlier round of litigation, the Writ Petition No. 28/2010 filed by Late Mr. Harbhajan Singh was dismissed and thereafter, he preferred SLP No. 8740/2010 which was also dismissed on 26.11.2010.
She would further highlight that while accepting the order in Writ Petition No. 3015/1999, the office order dated 18.06.2002 got to be passed and the same was accepted by Late Mr. Harbhajan Singh and was acted upon by both the parties.
She also invited the attention of the Bench to the service book of Late Mr. Harbhajan Singh and his pay slips showing that his services were being utilized as “Vehicle Examiner” though he continued to hold the post of “Driver” all along till he attained the stipulated age of superannuation, i.e., 55 years.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the case of Trilochan Singh (supra), he after severe disability was reappointed by the Corporation vide an order dated 16.12.1996 and posted with certain terms and conditions which indicated that his appointment as an Store Attendant will be a fresh appointment. However, no such order was passed in case of Late Mr. Harbhajan Singh as he was made to enjoy pay protection and other benefits qua the post of Driver till his attaining the age of 55 years.
Learned counsel for the respondents concludes her argument by stating that that the present OA has been filed in the year 2019 and insofar as Late Mr. Harbhajan Singh is concerned, the matter stands concluded by an order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 8740/2010 on 26.11.2010.
6. Analysis:
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we are of the view that the facts of the case are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the applicant has preferred a series of litigation.
In light of the prayer sought, what the applicant tried to urge is that his case is squarely covered by the decision rendered in the case of Ram phal (supra) with Trilochan Singh (supra) by the Hon’ble Apex Court. This is the only premise on the basis of which the applicant (since deceased) had sought similar benefits as has been extended to the applicants of the aforesaid cases. On careful examination of the decision rendered in Ram phal (supra) with Trilochan Singh (supra), we find that the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 7, observed as under:
“7.The dues payable to the appellants in both matters shall be paid by the respondent-Corporation within three months. We are once again making it clear that this order has been passed on the basis of peculiar facts and fresh appointment letter as notices above. In case the dues are not paid by the respondent-Corporation within three months, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum till they are paid. Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 35202-35204/2009 and Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 10348/2009 are allowed to that extent. No order as to costs. “
In the present case, admittedly, no fresh appointment order was issued qua the applicant (since deceased). A perusal of the service book and pay slips of Late Mr. Harbhajan Singh discloses that his services were being utilized as “Vehicle Examiner” and he continued to hold the post of “Driver” all along till he attained the stipulated age of superannuation, i.e., 55 years. Merely because the services of Late Mr. Harbhajan Singh were utilized as a “Vehicle Examiner” and he enjoyed pay protection and other benefits qua the post of Driver till his attaining the age of 55 years, it cannot be said that he was not deemed to be retired from service on 31.12.2005.
It is a matter of record that Late Mr. Harbhajan Singh had earlier filed T.A. No. 202/2009 before this Tribunal which was dismissed on 05.06.2009 in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide its judgment dated 09.01.2009 passed in various matters including LPA No. 1251/2007 against which the applicant had filed W.P.(C) No. 28/2010 before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court but the said Writ Petition was also dismissed on 06.01.2010 on account of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in judgment dated 09.01.2009 passed in various matters including LPA No. 1251/2007. Thereafter, the applicant, i.e., Late Mr. Harbhajan Singh had filed S.L.P.(C) No. 8740/2010 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India which was also dismissed on 26.11.2010.
Needless to say that these very facts were well within the knowledge of Late Mr. Harbhajan Singh and were part of the proceedings not only at the level of this Tribunal, the Hon’ble High Court but also at the level of the Hon’ble Apex Court. However, yet again, the applicant (since deceased) chose to make a representation by agitating his grievance on the analogy that fresh cause of action has arisen by virtue of a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case or Ram Phal (supra) with Trilochan Singh (supra) thereby himself creating a fresh cause of action, which is totally uncalled for.
In view of the above, we find that there is no merit and substance in the present OA and as such, the same is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed.
We intended to impose a cost upon the applicants (legal heirs of Late Mr. Harbhajan Singh) for wasting the precious time of this Tribunal, however, we are refraining from doing so as the MA seeking condonation of delay in filing the OA was allowed by this Tribunal and the OA has been heard on merits.
Pending MAs, if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.