WP (C) 1042 of 2010 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No. 1042/2010 & CM No. 2173/2010 % Date of Decision: 19.02.2010 Pradeep Kumar …. Petitioner Through Dr. Praveen Kumar Sharma, Advocate Versus Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors. …. Respondent Through Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO ANIL KUMAR, J. * The petitioner who is a Tabla Player is aggrieved by the order dated 24th August, 2009 passed in OA No. 2084/2008 titled as Pradip Kumar Vs. Govt. of NCT and Ors., by the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby his original application was disposed of with a direction to the respondent that in the event of a post of music teacher is notified and/or is going to be filled up by the respondents, the claim of the petitioner be considered with relaxation of age, if he conforms to other eligibility criteria in accordance with Rules. WP (C) 1042 of 2010 Page 2 of 4 The petitioner was a part time Tabla player and he has sought regularization as Tabla Player/Attendant/Helper to music teacher or any other post in the same cadre from the date of his initial appointment from 1st October, 1980. Earlier also, the petitioner had filed an original application before Central Administrative Tribunal being OA No. 361/2002 for his regularization as Tabla Player, which was dismissed and a review petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. A writ petition being CWP No. 2506/2003 was also filed however, regularization to the post of table player was not granted to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter preferred another original application being OA 194/2008 referring to a circular of the respondent dated 25th November, 2002. The request of the petitioner for regularization was declined, however, he was given liberty in view of the circular dated 25th November, 2002 consequent to which the petitioner filed another OA No. 2084/2008, which has been disposed of by the Tribunal by order dated 24th August, 2009 which is challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. The petitioner had contended that since the post of Tabla Player was more than three years old, on part time basis therefore, the respondent should have sanctioned permanent post of Tabla Player, WP (C) 1042 of 2010 Page 3 of 4 especially taking into consideration that the petitioner had been working for 28 years and therefore, he should have been regularized. The respondents had contested the petition on the ground that the plea of regularization of the petitioner was barred by res judicata. Regarding the circular dated 25th November, 2002, it was contended that it was with regard to sanction of Tabla Player part time posts for discontinuance of temporary posts till 31st May, 2003 as there was no post of Tabla Player in Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Therefore, it was contended that the petitioner could not be regularized. Reliance was also placed on Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi & Ors., 2006 (6) SCC 1 and Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand, 2009 (1) SCC (L & S) 943 to contend that no direction for regularization in respect of part time employees can be issued. The Tribunal after considering the pleas and contentions have held that the plea of the petitioner for regularization is barred by res judicata. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show as to how the plea of the petitioner for regularization is not barred by res judicata. The petitioner is also not entitled for regularization in view of the circular dated 25th November, 2002 as the same relates to sanction of Tabla Player part time post. WP (C) 1042 of 2010 Page 4 of 4 Consequently, the directions given by the Tribunal that in case a post of music teacher is notified or is going to be filled up by the respondents, the claim of the petitioner be considered with relaxation of age, if he conforms to other eligibility criteria in accordance with Rules cannot be faulted. The petitioner is not entitled for regularization and there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the Tribunal impugned in the present writ petition. The writ petition is without any merit and it is therefore dismissed. ANIL KUMAR, J. FEBRUARY 19, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J. ‘rs’