FEROZ AHMAD versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 818 · Decided: 29-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA, DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
FEROZ AHMAD 
v. 
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.) 
Service law: 
Delhi Development Act, 1957-Seniority-Claim for-Denied in view 
C of statutory Rules-Also denied by Courts below-In appeal, held: The 
question raised in the matter would depend upon validity of the Rules-In 
absence of proof whether the Rules are framed in terms of the statute and 
since the constitutionality of the Rules not challenged, matter remitted to 
Division Bench of High Court for fresh determination of validity of the Rules. 
D 
E 
Appellant was appointed as Junior Engineer with respondent No. 1. His 
representation for upgradation of his pay-scale with seniority was rejected, 
while the same was granted to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who were junior to 
the appellant, they being diploma holders. 
Appellant filed Writ Petition and the same was dismissed by Single 
Judge of High Court in view of the norms laid down for fixation of seniority. 
Letters Patent Appeal thereagainst was also dismissed by Division Bench of 
High Court Hence the present appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to Division Bench of 
F High Court, the Court 
HELD: I. The terms and conditions of service of the employees of the 
Delhi Development Authority are governed by the statutory rules. Rules and 
regulations are required to be framed in terms of the provisions of the statute. 
The Court has not been able to make out as to whether the said regulations 
G have been made in terms of the provisions of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 
or whether while framing them, conditions precedent therefor had been 
followed. [823-8, D[ 
2. Appellant did not raise any question as regards the constitutionality 
H 
818 
,. 
. > 
FEROZ AHMAD 1•. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [SINHA, l] 
819 
of the said purported regulations. The question raised by appellant would, A· 
however, depend upon the validity and/or applicability of the rules. Having 
regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, it is a fit case where an 
opportunity should be given to appellant to raise the contention as regards 
the validity and/or constitutionality of the rules. If no rules have validly been 
framed indisputably the rules prevailing prior thereto shall operate. A 
statutory rule, it is trite, cannot be supplemented by an executive order. B 
Appellant would be entitled to file an application for amendment of writ petition 
questioning the validity of the said purported rules. [823-D, E, G) 
Roop Chand Adlakha and Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors., 
[1989] Supp. 1 SCC 116 and DDA Graduate Engineers' Association and Ors. C 
v. The Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and Ors., JT (1992) 5 SC 396, 
distinguished. 
Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India and Anr., AIR (1967) SC 1889; 
Mervya Continho and Ors. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay and Ors., AIR 
(1967) SC 52; S.M Pandit and Ors. etc. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. etc., AIR D 
(1972) SC 252 and Delhi Transport Corporation v. D. T.C. Mazdoor Congress 
and Ors., (1991 J Supp. 1 SCC 600, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4331 of2006. 
From the Judgment/final Order dated 15.12.2005 of the High Court of E 
Delhi at New Delhi in L.P.A. No. 363 of 2004. 
Dr. Nafis A. Siddiqui for the Appellants. 
Ashwani Kumar and Nitin Thalwal for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
S.B. SINHA. J. Leave granted. 
Respondent herein is a statutory authority constituted under the Delhi 
Development Act, 1957. Appellant was appointed as a Junior Engineer on G 
12.8.1976. It is contended by Appellant that he is a Graduate Degree Holder. 
He is said to be senior to Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 who are diploma holders . 
Appellant was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on 29.3.2001. He 
made a representation for upgradation of his pay-scale to Rs. 10,000-325-
15,200, with seniority, which was not granted, although similar benefits had 
been granted to Respondent Nos. 2 & 3. He filed a writ petition before the H 
820 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A Delhi High Court. A learned Single Judge of the High Court by an order dated 
13.8.2002, directed Respondent to consider his representation within a period 
of six months. The said representation was rejected by Respondent by an 
order dated 23.9.2002 stating that he was not entitled thereto. In support of 
the said order, attention of Appellant was drawn to the norms laid down f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.