Shri Shanker Raju: Through this TA, applicant seeks promotion as Wireman Grade I w.e.f. 15.6.1981 on regularization with consequential benefits.
2. Applicant was engaged as Electric Beldar on Muster Roll (Daily wages) in July 1976 and was appointed as Wireman Grade II on muster roll in 1980. A proposal was made on 7.8.1980 to regularize the muster roll employees of electrical side of the Engineering Department of MCD on the concept of post to post basis, which was approved on 11.8.1980. In October 1980, those who have been appointed or regularized as Wireman Grade I approached the High Court in Lalit Mohan & others v. M.C.D. & another (WP No.1373/1980). An order dated 7.8.1981 stayed the implementation of the policy. However, the said writ was disposed of on 4.2.1987 without quashing the policy and a seniority list was to be re-issued. The provisional list of the workers to be regularized was issued on 3.8.2005 where the applicant was regularized w.e.f. 1.4.1988 as Wireman Grade I but he seeks regularization from the date he is working on muster roll from 15.6.1981.
3. None appeared for the applicant as well as respondents even after the second call. Being an old matter, TA is disposed of under Rules 15 and 16 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987.
4. It is stated in the TA that since the applicant was working as Wireman Grade I with effect from 1981, he should have been regularized and his case is covered by the decision of Lalit Mohans case (supra).
5. On the other hand, respondents in the counter reply contend that even if applicants period of employment with respondent No.1 is counted from the date of initial engagement, i.e., August 1976 on muster roll (daily wager) on the post of Beldar than also his total service is of four years and ten months by 1981. Thus an employee appointed to the post of Beldar has to complete at least eight years of combined service on the lower posts after regular appointment to the post of Beldar for becoming eligible for appointment to the post of Wireman Grade I. Applicant being Beldar on regular basis on 1.4.1981 cannot be regularized w.e.f. 15.6.1981.
6. Respondents in the counter reply aver that in MCD v. Gauri Shanker & others, DLT 1999 536 (CWP No.601/1997), it has been held that no daily wager could be regularized from the date of initial appointment. Order dated 4.2.1987 has been misconstrued, as the said order nowhere stipulates that the seniority and work experience should be ignored while regularizing / promoting the workers.
7. It is lastly stated in the reply that adopting the policy for regularization of muster roll workers engaged from 1.1.1980 to 31.3.1982 w.e.f. 1.4.1988, claim of the applicant cannot be covered by the decision in Lalit Mohans case (supra).
8. We have carefully considered the pleadings made by the parties.
9. As a daily wager, one does not hold a post. As such, regularization is always prospective in nature. However, in Lalit Mohans case (supra), the grievance was against the policy, which has been upheld. The observation has been made that the petitioners can have no grievance if their chances of promotion are not marred by regularization being made on point to point basis.
10. In the above view of the mater, issue of regularization from the initial date having not been dealt with, no benefit of Lalit Mohan (supra) can be extended to the applicant. Accordingly, when the applicant even on point to point basis has failed to acquire the eligibility criteria on post to post basis, he cannot be regularized from the date of his initial appointment.
11. TA is dismissed being bereft of merit. No costs. ( Dr. Veena Chhotray ) ( Shanker Raju ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/