SOBAN SINGH Vs. N D M C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these Writ Petitions a challenge has been laid to the Respondents' policy of offering and/or effecting regularization to Group 'C RMR employees restricted only to Group 'D'. Some employees had declined to accept this offer whereas others have laid siege to the impugned practice even though they had acceded to the offer of their regularization in the lower grade. The nub of the malaise is the administrative reluctance or aversion or plain lethargy in taking vigilant and timely steps to increase the number of sanctioned posts. This exercise does not require exceptional industry or ingenuity on the part of the decision taker. Instead of traversing this avenue, which will in large measure achieve the constitutional aspirations of the establishment of our country as a truly socialist state, government employees are made to languish and stagnate in the same position for several years. Service jurisprudence has developed numerous legal nomenclature owing entirely to the failure of the Administration to take action as required by the circumstances. In the present case, apart from 'Daily Wagers' one comes across epithets such TMR' (Temporary Muster Roll), and 'RMR' (Regular Muster Roll) employees, the former being Daily Wagers who have been given employment for a period in excess of 240 days in a year even in the absence of regular vacancies. TMR employees are metamorphosed into RMR employees on the sole criteria of their having put in six years service as TMR employees. There are two possible implications - (i) that there was an existing need for augmenting the workforce because of an increase in the gamut of work, which the administrators failed to address forthrightly by obtaining and ordaining an increase in the sanctioned strength; or (ii) that employment given by an officer was in flagrant violation of the Rules then in vogue.

(2.) Much too frequently, one has to grapple with terminology such as ad hoc, temporary, work-charged, officiating, and tenure/ appointments, and marvel at the fine and sometimes indistinguishable distinctions that administrators have sought to impart on them. In Purshottam Lal Dhingra Vs. UOI, AI 1958 SC 36 the conundrum to be unravelled was the concept of probationers and the boundaries of their dismissal, or removal or reduction in rank. Since then unheard of terminology has come to be used. It is time that service jurisprudence should be simplified so that even a lay employee can easily predict and charter his future. No employee should get lost in the maze of terminology which even the majority of lawyers would be prudent to steer clear of.

(3.) The NDMC has taken up the issue of RMR workers in Group C and D on several earlier occasions. As per Resolution No.3 (IV) dated 14.2.1997 NDMC had decided that RMR employees with six years service as on 31.12.1996 in Group 'D' Posts and RMR employees working in Group 'C posts would also be regularised ony in Group 'D' posts. In contrast to this decision Council resolved vide Resolution No.8 dated 18.3.1999 to ! regularise Group 'C' RMR workers against Group 'C posts subject to the grant of one- time relaxation from the provisions of Section 42 of the NDMC, Act 1994. Twenty six employees benefited from this decision. However, some RMR employees who had worked against Group 'C' posts but had been regularised in Group 'D' posts had challenged this decision and, therefore, the Council decided to revert to the decision dated 14.2.1997. Interim Orders have been passed staying the operation of NDMC Resolutions Nos. 3(21) dated 8.8.2002 and Office Order dated 9.8.2002. Earlier, as per NCT of Delhi letter dated 4.4.1997 the NDMC had been informed of the setting up of the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) by the Government of NCT of Delhi, and that this Authority would recruit candidates fro Group 'B' and 'C Posts.