* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7929/2007 MAI CHAND & ORS ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate. versus MCD ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Standing Counsel for MCD. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 13.05.2008 1. The respondent-MCD in their counter affidavit has stated that petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 have been reinstated in service vide Office Order dated 5th February, 2008, but disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against them for being involved in the act of theft of diesel at Sanitary Land Fill, Bhalaswa. It is further stated that the petitioner No. 4 was a daily wager and accordingly summary trial proceeding has been initiated against him. As against the petitioner No. 4, Office Order dated 25th January, 2006 suspending him from service has been withdrawn. 2. In the counter affidavit it is pointed out that the petitioners are not covered by CCS(CCA) Rules and being MCD employees, they are governed by DMC (Control and Appeal) Regulation, 1959. 3. In view of the above, the writ petition has become infructuous to the extent that order dated 25th January, 2006 suspending the petitioners already stands withdrawn. 4. The petitioners have also made a claim for payment of salary for the suspension period. The question whether the petitioners will be entitled to salary will have to be determined and decided in accordance with the service rules. The petitioners 1 to 3 have been paid 50% suspension allowance @ 50%. The question whether the said petitioners are entitled to enhanced subsistence allowance and whether retrospectively, will be decided by the respondent authorities within a period of one month from today. I may note here that the petitioners were suspended vide office order dated 25th January, 2006 and no departmental proceedings were initiated against them till order dated 5th February, 2008, when their suspension orders were revoked. 5. As far as petitioner No. 4 is concerned, he is a daily wager. As such he is not entitled to subsistence allowance. The question whether the petitioner No. 4 should be regularized has not been raised in the writ petition. The said question is left open. Being a daily wager, petitioner No. 4 is not entitled to any further relief in the present writ petition. However, it is clarified and it is open to the said petitioner to approach an appropriate forum and invoke the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. SANJIV KHANNA, J. MAY 13, 2008 VKR