Delhi High Court
Parwar Singh vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr. on 27 August, 2014
Author: Vipin Sanghi
Bench: S. Ravindra Bhat, Vipin Sanghi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Decided on: 27.08.2014
% W.P.(C) 8421/2008
PARWAR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through : Sh. Abishek Kaul, Advocate.
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....
Respondents
Through : Ms.Shobana Takiar, Adv. for GNCTD CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI VIPIN SANGHI, J. (OPEN COURT)
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 02.11.2007 in O.A. No. 353/2007. In the application, he urged that denial of second financial upgradation in the pay scale of `6,500-10,500/- was contrary to the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP) applicable to the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi ("GNCTD") employees.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Workshop/Laboratory Attendant by the GNCTD on 10.04.1973. He was subsequently promoted as Laboratory Assistant on 12.03.1993 in W.P.(C.) No.8421/2008 Page 1 of 5 the revised pay scale of `4,000-6,000/-. He was subsequently placed in the pay scale of `5,000-8,000/- on 5.4.2000. The ACP scheme was introduced with effect from 09.08.1999. The petitioner complained that two of his juniors - Rajender Kumar and Bharat Tiwari were granted second financial upgradation in the pay scale of `6,500-
10,500/- from the grade of `5,000-8,000/- on 14.9.2000 under the ACP scheme. The petitioner filed OA No. 2011/2006 in the CAT, seeking the quashing of the order no. F.127 (16)/2001/TE/AD/1253 dated 14.09.2001 alongwith order no. F.127(19)/2000/TE/AD/525 dated 13.04.2004 and order no. FT.81/E1/AD/2003/798 and further seeking grant of financial benefit under ACP scheme. The CAT directed the respondent to consider the grievances of the petitioner and treat the OA as representation and to dispose off the same within three months. Upon the respondent's denial of his entitlement by order dated 21.12.2006, he approached the CAT with a fresh application.
3. The CAT rejected the petitioner's claim for grant of second financial upgradation in the pay scale of `6,500-10,500/-, accepting the GNCTD's arguments that, in fact, the petitioner's placement in the pay scale of `5,000-8,000/- was a second promotion, which disentitled him to the benefit of second ACP.
4. The petitioner contends - and his counsel urges - that the CAT's findings with respect to the grant of second promotion was, in the facts of this case, erroneous. It was submitted that the petitioner's first promotion was as Laboratory Assistant on 12.03.1993. For that post, the requisite qualifications were "matriculation with science subject".
W.P.(C.) No.8421/2008 Page 2 of 5The petitioner undoubtedly was possessed of this qualification; his juniors were not so qualified. Despite this, they were promoted as Workshop Inspectors in the higher pay scale of `5,000-8,000/- on 8.12.1998 and 26.2.1999 respectovely. Upon the GNCTD being made aware of this anomaly of unqualified juniors being granted a more favourable treatment, the petitioner was also granted the same pay scale of `5,000-8,000/- on 5.4.2000.
5. In these circumstances, emphasized learned counsel, the petitioner was beneficiary of only one promotion, contrary to the CAT's findings. Learned counsel relied upon the pleadings of the parties before the CAT in support of his submission that the grant of pay scale of `5,000-8,000/- did not amount to promotion or up gradation, but assignment of pay scale which was due to the petitioner as a better qualified employee, as opposed to his juniors, who were unqualified but were given the benefit of pay grades higher than his own.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the ACP scheme clearly envisioned that financial upgradation would be purely personal to the employee and would not have any relevance to his seniority position. Other conditions attached to the ACP scheme were that the individual ought not to have been beneficiary of two promotions. In this case, it was contended that the promotion of the said two individuals, i.e. Rajender Kumar and Bharat Tiwari was because under the Recruitment Rules, Workshop Attendants/Laboratory Attendants not possessed of the qualification of W.P.(C.) No.8421/2008 Page 3 of 5 matriculation in science, could not be promoted as Laboratory Assistants. Consequently, the only option with the GNCTD was to promote them in the grade of Workshop Inspector in the pay scale of `5,000-8,000/-. Learned counsel submitted that in these circumstances, the petitioner could not have received the benefit of second financial upgrdation merely on the ground that his juniors were given a wrong promotion. Reliance was placed upon Point no. 8 of the ACP scheme in this regard which reads as follows:
"The Financial Upgradation under the ACP Scheme shall be purely personal to the employee and shall have no relevance to his seniority position. As such there shall be no additional financial upgradation for the senior employee on the ground that junior employee in this grade has got higher pay scale under the ACP scheme."
7. It is evident from the above discussion that this Court is called upon to decide whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of second financial upgradation. In order to decide this issue, it is necessary to see whether the grant of pay scale of `5,000-8,000/- to the petitioner, in the circumstances, of the case, was in fact a promotion.
8. The present case is squarely covered by our judgment dated 19.08.2014 in Krishan Kumar vs. Government of NCT of Delhi W.P.(C) No. 8422/2008 arising out of OA No. 1711/2006.
9. In the light of the above discussion, the writ petition has to succeed and is, accordingly allowed. The respondents are hereby directed to grant to the petitioner the benefit of the second ACP on the W.P.(C.) No.8421/2008 Page 4 of 5 date when it became due to him, or on the date of the introduction of the ACP Scheme, whichever is later, with the necessary differential pay, emoluments and consequential benefits. The necessary and consequential orders in respect of the pay scale and other benefits shall be issued within four weeks from today.
VIPIN SANGHI, J S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J AUGUST 27, 2014 W.P.(C.) No.8421/2008 Page 5 of 5