Court’s Decision:
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner’s writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) order. The petitioner sought retrospective regularization as an HMV Driver from 1994, claiming parity with other employees. However, the court upheld the CAT’s order and ruled that the petitioner’s regularization in 2008 as an LMV Driver was lawful and in line with the earlier High Court judgment dated May 15, 2008.
The court concluded that the petitioner could not seek retrospective benefits or parity with other cases because his circumstances were factually and legally distinct.
Facts:
- Initial Appointment: The petitioner joined NDMC in 1986 as a driver on a Temporary Muster Roll (TMR) basis. His service on TMR was extended till December 1989.
- Regular Muster Roll (RMR): In 1994, the petitioner passed a Trade Test and was engaged on a Regular Muster Roll (RMR) basis as a driver.
- 2008 Trade Test: The petitioner was directed to take another Trade Test following a High Court order in 2008. Upon passing, he was regularized as an LMV Driver-cum-Fitter with effect from August 25, 2008.
- Parity Claims: The petitioner sought to be regularized as an HMV Driver retrospectively from 1994, citing parity with other employees, particularly Shri Om Prakash Dabas and Shri Rama Kant Rai, who were granted earlier regularization.
- Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT): The petitioner approached the CAT to challenge NDMC’s denial of retrospective regularization. The CAT dismissed his claim in 2016, leading to the present writ petition.
Issues:
- Whether the petitioner was entitled to be regularized as an HMV Driver retrospectively from 1994.
- Whether the petitioner could claim parity with other employees such as Shri Om Prakash Dabas and Shri Rama Kant Rai, who were granted earlier regularization.
- Whether the earlier judicial orders were binding on the petitioner’s case.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
- Denial of Rights: The petitioner argued that the denial of retrospective regularization reduced his 22 years of service to nothing and failed to account for his efforts since 1994.
- Parity with Others: The petitioner claimed he was similarly placed to employees such as Shri Om Prakash Dabas and Shri Rama Kant Rai, who had been granted earlier regularization and benefits.
- Compliance with 1994 Test: Since the petitioner passed the Trade Test in 1994, he argued that he should have been regularized from that date rather than 2008.
- Reliance on Executive Instructions: The petitioner relied on executive circulars and office memoranda (OM) issued by the government, including a 1992 OM regarding seniority and a 2023 OM on pensions, to support his claim.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- Trade Test Compliance: The NDMC emphasized that the petitioner’s regularization was conditional upon passing the Trade Test and approval by the Selection Committee, which he completed in 2008.
- Factual Distinction: The NDMC argued that the petitioner’s case was not analogous to that of Shri Om Prakash Dabas and Shri Rama Kant Rai due to differences in their respective factual and legal circumstances.
- Adherence to Judicial Orders: The NDMC maintained that the petitioner’s case was governed by the High Court’s 2008 judgment, which had directed regularization only after satisfying certain conditions.
Analysis of the Law:
- Role of Trade Test:
- The High Court reaffirmed the legal principle that regularization is contingent upon fulfilling mandatory criteria such as passing a Trade Test. The petitioner’s regularization was conditional upon his performance in the 2008 Trade Test, after which he was regularized as an LMV Driver.
- Judicial Precedents:
- The petitioner cited cases involving Shri Om Prakash Dabas and Shri Rama Kant Rai, who were granted earlier regularization. However, the court found these cases factually distinct:
- Om Prakash Dabas: His services were regularized from 1994 as he passed the Trade Test that year. The court held that this fact distinguished him from the petitioner, who passed the test only in 2008.
- Rama Kant Rai: His regularization stemmed from a settlement in an Industrial Tribunal matter, which explicitly stated that it could not serve as a precedent for other cases.
- The petitioner cited cases involving Shri Om Prakash Dabas and Shri Rama Kant Rai, who were granted earlier regularization. However, the court found these cases factually distinct:
- Finality of Judicial Orders:
- The court emphasized that the petitioner was bound by its 2008 judgment, which explicitly required a Trade Test for regularization. The petitioner had not sought a review or modification of that order and could not now claim retrospective regularization.
Precedent Analysis:
The court analyzed prior rulings, including:
- Om Prakash Dabas’s Case: Regularization was granted from 1994 because he passed the Trade Test that year. His legal claim was upheld through proper judicial channels.
- Rama Kant Rai’s Case: His case was settled through an Industrial Tribunal award, which was specific to his circumstances and explicitly barred as a precedent.
The court distinguished these cases from the petitioner’s situation, where the Trade Test was only passed in 2008.
Court’s Reasoning:
- Bound by 2008 Order:
- The High Court held that its own 2008 order governed the petitioner’s case. This order explicitly required the petitioner to pass a Trade Test for regularization, and the petitioner complied with this condition only in 2008.
- Lack of Parity:
- The petitioner could not claim parity with others as his circumstances were distinct. Both Shri Om Prakash Dabas and Shri Rama Kant Rai were regularized due to specific legal and factual considerations not applicable to the petitioner.
- Reliance on Circulars and OMs:
- The court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on executive instructions (e.g., 1992 and 2023 OMs), noting that these were irrelevant to his case. The petitioner’s claim for retrospective regularization was governed by judicial orders, not executive policies.
Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the petitioner’s writ petition, stating:
- The petitioner’s claim for retrospective regularization was unsustainable as he was bound by the 2008 judgment.
- His case could not be equated with others due to factual and legal distinctions.
- The petitioner’s reliance on executive instructions and OMs was misplaced.
Implications:
This judgment reinforces:
- Finality of Judicial Orders: Parties are bound by court orders unless they seek a review or appeal.
- Distinct Nature of Precedents: Claims for parity require identical factual and legal circumstances.
- Adherence to Procedural Requirements: Regularization depends on compliance with procedural conditions, such as passing a Trade Test.