Saturday, December 14, 2019

Upper age relaxation - Appointment on the post of TGT (Natural Science) – Male [Post Code 135/17]


18 November 2019 – Delhi High Court (DB)
Pardeep Vs. DSSSB & Anr. - [W.P.(C) No. 12044/2019]

Delhi High Court (Division Bench), vide Order dated 18.11.2019 in W.P.(C) No. 12044/2019, issued directions to the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (D.S.S.S.B.) to keep one post of TGT (Natural Science) - Male [Post Code 135/17] vacant during the pendency of the Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (C.A.T.), Principal Bench, New Delhi.

C.A.T., vide Order dated 23.09.2019 in O.A. No. 2834/2019, had rejected the prayer of the applicant (Pardeep) of keeping one post of TGT (Natural Science) - Male [Post Code 135/17] vacant during the pendency of the Original Application.

Anuj Aggarwal
Advocate

Mob - 9891403206



Wednesday, August 21, 2019

Regularization of service of a Part-Time Sweeper/Peon

08 August 2019 – Central Administrative Tribunal (C.A.T.), Principal Bench, New Delhi – C.A.T. directed the Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India, to regularize the service of a Part-Time Sweeper/Peon retrospectively w.e.f. the year 2010.

In the year 1991, Smt. Sunheri Devi was appointed as a part-time Sweeper by the Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India. Despite working continuously for more than 2 decades, her services were not regularized. Being aggrieved by non-regularization of her service, Smt. Sunheri Devi filed an Original Application (O. A. No. 2563/2014) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (C.A.T.), Principal Bench, New Delhi, thereby seeking regularization of her service.

Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel of Smt. Sunheri Devi, submitted that Smt. Sunheri Devi was working on full time basis but was illegally designated as “part-time”. She was doing the identical work and was discharging the identical duties which were performed by her counterparts who were, however, treated as regular/permanent employees. It was also submitted that in the year 2010, her juniors were regularized whereas she was not even considered for regularization by the Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India. It was further submitted that the respondent, being a Government Department, should have acted as a model employer and ought not to have indulged in the exploitative practice. In support of his contention, the counsel for the applicant relied upon the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others [(2018) 8 SCC 238)] and Sheo Narain Nagar and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [(2018) 13 SCC 432].

Hon’ble Mr. S. N.Terdal, Member (J) & Hon’ble Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Member (A), Central Administrative Tribunal (C.A.T.), Principal Bench, New Delhi, vide Order dated 08 August 2019, appreciating the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant, directed the Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India, to regularize the service of the applicant with effect from the date on which her junior (Shri Gajender) was regularized with all the consequential benefits.


Anuj aggarwal
Advocate
483, Block-2, Lawyers Chamber,
Delhi High Court, New Delhi – 110003
Mob – 9891403206



https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

Wednesday, August 14, 2019

10 Years delay in issuing the charge sheet, 8 years in concluding the departmental enquiry and 22 years in getting the justice – A Meter Reader finally gets exonerated of alleged charges by Delhi High Court


13th August 2019 – Delhi High Court
In the year 1990, Shri. D.P. Sharma, Meter Reader, was issued charge sheet by Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU). It was alleged in the charge sheet that Shri. D.P. Sharma, with ulterior motive and to favour the consumers, did not issue Statement No. III and Statement No. II i.e. did not inform his senior that premises of one of the customer was locked and electric meter of another customer was not functional. The alleged incidents pertained to the year 1980-1982.

The departmental enquiry, pursuant to the charge sheet, was concluded in the year 1998 and vide Order dated 11.02.1999, penalty of “reduction by 2 stages in time scale for a period of 2 years with cumulative effect” was imposed upon Shri. D.P. Sharma by the Appellate Authority. It may be noted that enquiry officer had exonerated Shri. D.P. Sharma but, however, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and imposed the aforesaid penalty. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid penalty order, Shri. D.P. Sharma challenged the same before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.

Anuj Aggarwal and Tenzing Thinlay Lepcha, Advocates, counsels for Shri. D.P. Sharma, argued that inordinate and unexplained delay in initiating as well as concluding the enquiry, vitiates the departmental enquiry. It was also argued that since enquiry officer had exonerated Shri. D.P. Sharma, there was no occasion for the disciplinary authority, as well as appellate authority, to disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer. It was also submitted that it was a case of no evidence and DESU (now BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.) has failed to prove misconduct against Shri D.P. Sharma.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, Delhi High Court, vide Judgment/Order dated 13.08.2019, considering the submissions made on behalf of Shri. D.P. Sharma, quashed the impugned penalty order and show cause notices which were issued to Shri. D.P. Sharma.




Wednesday, June 5, 2019

The Repealing and Amending Act, 2016, which repealed the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (No. 24 of 2010) in entirety


In the year 2010, the Parliament of India, by virtue of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (No. 24 of 2010), inter-alia, inserted/added sub-sections (2) and (3) to Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The amendment became effective from 15th September, 2010.

Section 2A, post amendment, reads as under:-

"2A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute:-

(1) Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 10, any such workman as is specified in Sub-section (1) may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute referred to therein after the expiry of three months from the date he has made the application to the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such application the Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government in accordance with the provisions of this Act and all the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to such adjudication as they apply in relation to an industrial dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government.

(3) The application referred to in sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as specified in sub-section (1)."

Section 2A(1) contains a deeming provision with respect to disputes connected with or arising out of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of services of a workman. Section 2A(1) deems such a dispute of an individual workman to be an ‘industrial dispute’ notwithstanding that no other workman, or any union of a workman, is a party to the dispute.

Section 2A(2) enables a workman, whose services have been terminated, to make an application directly to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute pertaining to termination of his services. Sub-section 2 prescribes that such workman will have to first make an application to the Conciliation Officer for conciliation of the dispute and, on expiry of forty five days from the date of making such application, to directly approach the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute. As a result, the workman stands exempted from awaiting the outcome of the conciliation and also the reference being made by the Appropriate Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Section 2A(3) provides that application under Section 2A(2) should be made to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal before the expiry of three years from the date of termination of services of the respective workman.

In the year 2016, the Parliament of India passed the Repealing and Amending Act, 2016 (No. 23 of 2016). The Repealing and Amending Act, 2016 received the assent of the President of India on 06th May, 2016 and was published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary, Part II—Section 1) on 09th May, 2016. The Repealing and Amending Act, 2016 repealed the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (No. 24 of 2010) in entirety.

Effect of the Repealing and Amending Act, 2016 is that sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 stands deleted. Now the workman cannot approach the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal directly and will have to wait for the reference being made by the Appropriate Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Note
The Industrial Disputes (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2003 (No. 9 of 2003), which became enforceable with effect from 22nd August 2003, inserted/added the following sub-section to Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:-

"10. xxx

(4A) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 9C and in the case of a dispute falling the scope of Section 2A, the individual workman concerned may, within twelve months from the date of communication of the order of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of the date of commencement of the Industrial Disputes(Delhi Amendment) Act, 2003, whichever, is later, apply in the prescribed manner, to the Labour Court, tribunal, as the case may be, for adjudication of the dispute and the Labour Court or Tribunal, as the case may be dispose of such application in the same manner as a dispute referred under sub-section(1)."

In view of Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2003, a workman in Delhi can directly approach Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of dispute pertaining to discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of his service within 1 year of the passing of the termination order.

It may be noted that provisions similar to Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2003, have been made by the State Governments of Karnataka as well as West Bengal.

Anuj Aggarwal
Advocate
483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,
Delhi High Court, New Delhi – 110003
Mob – 9891403206

478-479, Lawyers Chamber,
Western Wing, Tis Hazari Court,
Delhi – 110054


Mob - 9891403206

Monday, June 3, 2019

Appointment on the post of TGT Sanskrit (Female)


30 May 2019, Delhi High Court (DB) – Appointment on the post of TGT Sanskrit (Female) – Prayer of interim relief not considered by the CAT – High Court directed the DSSSB to keep 1 post vacant during the pendency of the Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) – High Court also declared that prima-facie the petitioner was entitled to age relaxation on account of her serving as a Guest Teacher since 2011.

Chanchal Rani Vs. DSSSB & Ors. [W.P. (C) 6383/2019, Date of Decision = 30 May 2019, Delhi High Court (Division Bench)]



Thursday, April 25, 2019

“What percent is 7 paise of Rs. 75?”

According to Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB), the correct answer is 28/3 (i.e. 9.33%). Whether correct answer is 28/3 (i.e. 9.33%) or 7/75 (i.e. 0.0933 %), will be decided by an Expert Committee – Appointment on the post of TGT Sanskrit (Male) Post Code = 144/17. Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi [Sandeep Kumar Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board; O.A. No. 1294/2019; decided on 25.04.2019]

25th April, 2019 – Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench New Delhi, directed the DSSSB to refer the question to an expert committee which shall examine the aforesaid question and submit its report to the DSSSB.

Sandeep Kumar appeared in a written examination conducted by the DSSSB for appointment on the post of TGT Sanskrit (Male) Post Code = 144/17. He scored 105 Marks but could not get selection because of 1 question i.e. Question No. 56 = What percent is 7 paise of Rs. 75? The Question was having 4 options i.e. (A) 28/3, (B) 3/28, (C) 7/75 and (D) “None of these”. Sandeep answered option ‘C’, whereas according to DSSSB, the correct answer is option ‘A’. 0.25 were deducted from the total marks of Sandeep on account of giving wrong answer. Being aggrieved, Sandeep approached the CAT by filing an Original Application [O.A. No. 1294/2019].

Anuj Aggarwal, Tenzing Thinlay Lepcha and Saurabh Ahuja, Advocates, appearing for the applicant (Sandeep Kumar), submitted that the correct answer of the aforesaid question was option ‘C’ i.e. 7/75. It was also submitted that because of the arbitrary action of the DSSSB, the applicant was illegally denied appointment on the post of TGT Sanskrit.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy (Chairman) and Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed Member (A), hearing the Original Application, on 25.04.2019, directed the DSSSB to refer the question to an expert committee which shall examine the said question and submit its report to the DSSSB in a time bound manner.

Sunday, April 14, 2019

10 April 2019 – Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) – Special Educator (Primary) in MCD (Post Code 15/17) – CAT issued notice to the DSSSB, NDMC, EDMC, SDMC as well as the Rehabilitation Council of India on account of their failure to fill all the vacancies of Special Educator (Primary) in MCD (Post Code 15/17), which were advertised vide Advertisement dated 07.08.2017 [Reshma Parveen & Others Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors. [O.A. No. 1038/2019, Date of order = 10.04.2019]


Eighteen (18) qualified Special Educators filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi, thereby seeking appointment on the post of Special Educator (Primary) in MCD (Post Code 15/17). The applicants had appeared in the written examination, as conducted by the DSSSB, but couldn’t qualify the same because of wrong examination procedure and defective question paper.

Anuj Aggarwal and Tenzing Thinlay Lepcha, Advocates, counsels for the applicants, submitted that in the last 7 years, the DSSSB has failed to fill even 35% of the aforesaid posts. DSSSB has till date filled only 547 posts out of 1,790 posts of Special Educator (Primary). Because of non-appointment of Special Educators, children with special needs (disabled children) have failed to enjoy their fundamental right of free & compulsory education as enshrined in Article 21A of the Constitution of India.

It was also submitted by the counsels for the applicants that the DSSSB received the requisition from the MCD on the basis of 6 independent disabilities i.e. MCD demanded candidates from 6 independent disabilities but the DSSSB acted contrary to the requisition by not specifying the same in the advertisement.

It was also submitted that in the written examination the question paper, which the candidates were required to answer, contained questions which were out of syllabus. Part-B of the said question paper consisted of questions from all the 6 different branches/specialization of disabilities. The aforesaid question paper clearly shows that a candidate who studied one branch of disability was required to answer questions which were never part of his study/course and, consequently, it was out of syllabus and beyond the scope of his study. It was, therefore, submitted that asking questions pertaining to hearing or mental retardation disability from a candidate who is specialized in teaching blind/low vision students, is not only illogical & illegal but also amounts to asking questions which are out of syllabus. The aforesaid mechanism of setting question paper clearly reflects the incompetency of the DSSSB.


Counsels for the applicants also submitted that the DSSSB arbitrarily and unilaterally changed the rules of game inasmuch as initially a candidate was required to pass Part-A as well as Part-B independently and acquire 40% marks in each section/part. However, subsequently, the DSSSB short listed the candidates by asking the sum total of the marks obtained by the candidate in Part-A as well as Part-B and, consequently, dispensed with the requirement of independently passing/qualifying each part/section.

The Hon’ble Tribunal was pleased to issue notice in the Original Application. The next date of hearing is 11.07.2019. [Reshma Parveen & Others Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors. [O.A. No. 1038/2019, Date of order = 10.04.2019]