P.P.Garg & ANR. v. Sindhushree Khullar & ORS.

#29 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 202/2007 & CM APPL. 9684/2008 P.P.GARG & ANR.

..... Petitioners Through Ms. Inderjeet Saroop, Advocate versus SINDHUSHREE KHULLAR & ORS.

..... Respondents Through Mr. Vivek B. Saharya, Addl. Standing Counsel with Mr. Mananjay Mishra, Advocate for NDMC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

O R D E R

% 05.10.2016 Present contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 21st August, 2003 in W.P.(C) 4805/1997 wherein it has been held as under:- "In view of the clearcut finding of the Supreme Court in Writ Petition no. 1/90, where a similar contention was raised before the Supreme Court by the employees working in the Auto Workshop of the NDMC that they were part and parcel of the Electricity establishment, the Supreme Court held that the employees of the Auto Workshop forms a part and parcel of the Electricity Wing of the NDMC. Although that petition was considering 18 categories of employees which included ministerial staff. From the letter of the respondent promoting the petitioners to the Auto Workshop and the fact that the petitioners are Assistant Engineers (Electrical & Mechanical) there is no justification not to give the same pay scales as has

been granted to other employees of the NDMC working in the Auto Workshop as Auto Workshop forms a part and parcel of the Electricity Wing of the NDMC. Without going into other submissions of the respondent, in view of the clear finding of the Supreme Court that Auto Workshop forms part and parcel of the Electricity Wing of the NDMC, a direction is issued to the respondents to give Shiv Shankar pay scales to the petitioners. Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute." (emphasis supplied) Learned counsel for petitioner states that petitioner has not been given Shiv Shankar Pay Scale inasmuch as third time bound promotion (TBP) scale has not been given to the petitioner, even though the petitioner was entitled for the same on 24th June, 2006.

It is the case of the respondent that petitioner has not been granted third TBP Scale on completion of twenty six years of qualifying service as he had not been promoted to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) on regular basis.

In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner states that third TBP Scale has to be granted on completion of twenty six years service irrespective of the fact whether petitioner had been promoted or not to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil).

However, a perusal of the judgment and order dated 21st August, 2003 from which the present contempt proceedings arise shows that there is no discussion leave alone a direction that the petitioner is entitled to third TBP Scale with effect from 24th June, 2006, irrespective of the fact whether petitioner had been promoted or not to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil).

In any event, this Court in present contempt proceedings cannot arrive at a conclusion that third TBP Scale has to be given to the petitioner on completion of twenty six years of service without being promoted to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil). The said issue, in fact, was never raised and/or adjudicated upon by the Coordinate Bench of this Court while deciding W.P.(C) 4805/1997 on 21st August, 2003. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the present contempt petition is not maintainable and stands disposed of. However, the petitioner is given liberty to agitate his grievance by filing appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy. Rights and contentions of all parties are left open.

MANMOHAN, J OCTOBER 05, 2016 rn