Delhi High Court: Chandra Dhari Singh, J.*, held that the policy regarding the marking of attendance on the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (‘MCD’) SMART Application could not be termed as arbitrary or unfair mainly for two reasons, firstly, purchasing/possession of a smart phone was not a compulsion for all employees as the employees had alternate methods to mark their attendance and could opt to mark themselves present either through the supervisor or any other employee’s phone. Secondly, the issue of privacy and security did not arise as the application was not developed by an unknown source, rather by a body under the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology where the said body had already done due diligence with regards to the potential threats of security breach.
Background
Petitioner was a registered union representing the interests of “para medical technical staff” employed by Respondent 2, MCD. Respondent 2 issued an order, whereby it directed that the salaries of all employees of the RBIPMT and MVID hospitals (which included members of petitioner) would be released only after they marked their daily attendance through the MCD SMART App via smart phones. Petitioner made a written representation to MCD assailing the order and requesting that MCD should address the various grievances raised by its employees regarding the feasibility of compliance with these orders. Aggrieved by the lack of action taken by MCD, petitioner preferred the present petition. This Court vide interim order dated 12-09-2022, directed MCD to ensure that the salaries of employees of petitioner were not withheld on account of them being unable to mark their attendance in the MCD SMART App.
Petitioner submitted that the app based attendance system as introduced by MCD had proven bane to the employees as most of the employees to whom the said system had been implemented belonged to a poor strata and were not financially capable to purchase smart phones, therefore, making it mandatory to mark their attendance through the said system had violated multiple rights of the said employees.
MCD submitted that the employees were nowhere required to purchase the smart phones, rather were given option to mark their attendance through their supervisor or through another employee. MCD further submitted that the policy was introduced to inculcate discipline among the employees and nowhere violated any right of petitioner rather helped the department in ensuring availabilities of the staff in the hospitals.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The issue for consideration before this Court was “whether this Court could interfere in policy decisions taken by executive, and if yes, whether the present policy was unfair or arbitrary and ought to be quashed owing to alleged violation of the rights of petitioner?”.
The Court relied on Federation Haj PTOS of India v. Union of India, (2020) 18 SCC 527 and Hero Motocorp Ltd. v. Union of India, (2023) 1 SCC 386 and opined that the Courts did not need to embark upon the independence of decision-making powers of the executive, rather could only look into the same if the said policy under challenge was arbitrarily manifested. The term “arbitrarily manifested” means that the threshold for invalidating plenary legislation or an executive decision needed to be met for the interference of the judiciary.
The Court relied on Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 533 and opined that the Court had limited power to interfere in public policy decisions, particularly those taken on matters relating to the public healthcare system and could only do so when the policy was manifestly arbitrary. Therefore, the power conferred to this Court under writ jurisdiction was confined to the aspect of analyzing and setting aside a provision which was wholly beyond the scope of regulation-making power, inconsistent with existing laws, or in violation of constitutional provisions.
The Court observed that in the present case, the implementation of the application was intricately connected to the initiative of instilling discipline and ensuring accountability among employees, particularly in terms of attendance. This decision could be unequivocally characterized as a measure taken for the improvement of the healthcare system. The Court opined that the significance lies in recognizing that the dedicated contributions of the staff were paramount to the functionality of the system and without such measures to ensure attendance and accountability, there existed a real risk of systemic failure in the healthcare sector. Thus, the decision to introduce the application was a strategic and necessary step toward fortifying the health care system and sustaining the vital contributions of the staff and therefore, the same could not be interfered with by the Court since, the same was not illegal.
The Court opined that the introduction of such a system was to ensure transparency and efficiency of working by state departments and timely delivery of service and welfare schemes to the public, an objective desirable for any public entity. Therefore, this Court did not deem it necessary to term the introduction of a similar system in MCD as illegal. The advancement of technology had helped the public sectors in many ways, however, protesting against such advancement only showed the intent of the employees to not comply with MCD orders.
The Court noted that the employees were given multiple methods of marking their attendance, including through smart phones owned by their supervisor or through any other employees through whose application they have been mapped. Thus, the contention regarding forcing the employees to purchase a smart phone was rejected. Therefore, petitioner could not submit that employees were being coerced into downloading an application or that they were arbitrarily prevented from recording their attendance due to the lack of access to smart phones or technical knowledge. Thus, the submission that the policy was manifestly unfair was rejected, and this Court did not find any cogent reasons for striking down the impugned policy decision.
The Court dismissed the petition and held that the policy regarding the marking of attendance on the MCD SMART Application could not be termed as arbitrary or unfair mainly for two reasons, firstly, purchasing/possession of a smart phone was not a compulsion for all employees as the employees had alternate methods to mark their attendance and could opt to mark themselves present either through the supervisor or any other employee’s phone. Secondly, the issue of privacy and security did not arise as the application was not developed by an unknown source, rather by a body under the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology where the said body had already done due diligence with regards to the potential threats of security breach.
[Paramedical Technical Staff Welfare Association of MCD v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 8372, decided on 20-12-2023]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Chandra Dhari Singh
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: C. M. Jha, Advocate
For the Respondents: Yeeshu Jain, ASC; Sanjay Vashishtha, Standing Counsel; Umesh K. Burnwal, SPC; Jyoti Tyagi, Manisha, Hitanshu Mishra, Vishal Kumar, Advocates