* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
16.
+ LPA 235/2009
DULARI DEVI & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. R.S. Shukla, Adv.
versus
M.C.D. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit K. Paul, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL
ORDER
% 19.05.2009
The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 19.12.2008. The
appellants (original petitioners in the writ petition) claim that they were appointed as
daily wagers in the Leprosy Home of the MCD at Tahirpur, Shahdara, Delhi. However,
none of the appellants mentioned from which date they were so appointed. Their case is
that on 6th February / 8th March, 2004, a letter/order was given to the appellants by the
Administrative Officer (Health) whereby each one of them was asked to join duties with
the Medical Officer In-charge (MOIC) at the Leprosy Home, Tahirpur, Shahdara. The
grievance of the appellants is that while they were continuing to discharge their duties at
the Leprosy Home, they were suddenly asked by the respondent MCD (original
respondent in the writ petition) by identical worded letters dated 19th September, 2006 to
produce any document on record as proof of their employment in MCD prior to their
posting at the Leprosy Home. The appellants did not produce any document to show that
prior to their posting at the Leprosy Home, they were employed in the MCD. They were
accordingly not permitted to resume duties thereafter. Accordingly they were constrained
to file the writ petition. There is no explanation as to why it took the appellants more
than one year to file the writ petition. No document was filed by the appellants with the
writ petition to indicate that any of the appellants was appointed in the MCD prior to
LPA 235/2009 Pg.1 of
3
being posted in the Leprosy Home. The case of the MCD before the learned single Judge
was that none of the appellants was in fact ever appointed to the MCD and it appears that
orders transferring them to Leprosy Home were issued without there being any
appointment letter to begin with. As per the MCD, these facts came to light on or about
1st May, 2006 when it was realized that several persons had managed to get employed in
MCD as daily wagers on the basis of fake documents and bogus transfer orders. The
MCD accordingly issued notices asking the daily wagers to produce details of their
previous employment. When no such information was forthcoming, by separate orders
dated 19.9.2006, each of the appellants was relieved from service. The MCD submitted
before the learned single Judge that none of the appellants had been able to show that
they were ever employed in the MCD prior to their posting at the Leprosy Home. What
they have produced is only the order either transferring them or posting them in the
Leprosy Home. In fact each of these orders presupposes that they were already employed
in the MCD when in fact they were not. As per the counsel for the MCD, the records do
not show that any of these appellants was in fact employed with the MCD and in view of
this, there was no question of having to comply with Section 95(2) of the Delhi
Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 read with the Regulations. Despite seeking repeated
opportunities from the court, the appellants were unable to produce any document to
show that they were employed with the MCD prior to their being posted at the Leprosy
Home. The learned single Judge thus rightly held that since the factual basis itself had
not been substantiated by the appellants, they cannot be granted any relief as prayed for
and the question of applying the procedure under Section 95(2) of the DMC Act before
removing them from service cannot arise. In any event, each one of them was given a
separate show cause notice in reply to which they were unable to show that they were
ever appointed to the MCD. The learned single Judge thus correctly came to the
conclusion that none of the appellants was employed in the MCD prior to their posting at
the Leprosy Home and that they appeared to have managed to obtain orders posting them
LPA 235/2009 Pg.2 of 3
at the Leprosy Home on the basis that they were already employed in the MCD when in
fact they were not. The MCD was, therefore, fully justified in not permitting the
appellants to continue in service at the Leprosy Home beyond 19.9.2006. In fact in the
show cause notice issued to the appellant No.1 dated 27.3.2008 (Pg.72 of the paper
book), it is clearly stated that investigations by the MCD revealed that not only had the
appellant joined the said office illegally on the basis of forged / fake posting order, but
also worked there as daily wager / on regular basis thereby committing fraud during the
relevant period and as such, her engagement as daily wager / on regular basis was not
only void but also illegal apart from being irregular having been made without authority
of law or by the competent authority. The appellants could not give any plausible
explanation to the show cause notice issued to them.
2. We find no infirmity in the said findings and conclusions arrived at by the learned
single Judge to warrant any interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. All
applications stand disposed of as well.
CHIEF JUSTICE
NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J
MAY 19, 2009
Pk
LPA 235/2009 Pg.3 of 3