Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Kamlesh Kumar Meena vs Govt. Of Nctd on 24 January, 2022
O.A. No. 4582/2015
Central Administrative Tribunal
Adinnis
trative Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No. 4582/2015
7
M.A. No. 3749/2021
t n d
This the 24th day of January,2022
Hon'ble Ms. Manjula Das, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A))
1. Sh. Kamlesh Meena PGT (Hindi), age -38,
S/o Sh. Bharat Lal Meena,
R/o GB-118, Pul Prehladpur, New Delhi.
2. Sh. Ram Kesh Meena, TGT (S.S.T), age -35.
S/o Sh. Hari Ram Meena,
R/o F-329, Shiv Durga Vihar,
Lakkadpur, Faridabad, Haryana.
3. Sh. Jag Ram Meena, age -38,
S/o Sh. Nanag Ram,
R/o E-132, Gali No. 17C, Sad Nagar-11,
New Delhi - 46.
4. Sh. Ram Prasad PCT (Sanskrit), age-42,
S/o Sh. Bajrang Lal Meena,
R/o GB-118, Pul Prehladpur, New Delhi.
5. Sh. Hans Raj Meena PGT (Pol.Sc), age -41,
S/o Sh. Meethya Lal,
R/o H. No. 311, Block A,
DA Flats, Type-IV,Shalimar Bagh, Delhi 11o088.
-
6. Sh. Sahav Singh, age -42,
S/o Sh. Ranvir Singh,
R/o House No. 1088, Block L-I,
Gali No. 25, Sanganm Vihar, New Delhi. Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Education Department,
New Delhi, Through Chief Secretary.
O.A. No. 4582/2015
The Dircctor of Education,
ativeA
AOmna 2.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Establishment lI1 Grant,
Old Secretariat, Delhi-54.
..Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Sangita Rai)
ORDER (Orald
Hon'ble Ms. Manjula Das, Chairman:
M.A. N0. 3749/2021 The present MA has been filed by the applicants praying for early hearing of OA No. 4582/2015. For the reasons stated in the MA and also keeping in view that this is an old case of 2015, we allow the MA and take up the case for hearing today itself. OA No. 4582/2015
The present application has been filed under Section -19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying therein for the following relief:
That the applicants for the post code 128/2000 may kindly be directed to be given the G.P.F. Facilities."
2 Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) issued an advertisement in the year 2000 for selection to the post of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) (SC), PGT (English), PGT (Sanskrit), PGT (Hindi) with post code 128/2000 under the ST category. The applicants applied for the post and pursuant to the aforesaid examination, appcared in the selection process in the year 2001-
02. It is submitted by the applicants that the Selection Board did 3 O.A. No. 4582/2015 AAdmins strative Tnot declare the results of reserved category candidates i.e. SC/ST OBC on the ground that the benefit of reservation will not be extended to the candidates, whose parents are migrant or their caste certificate has been issued from out of Delhi. It is also stated that the said decision of the Government was challenged by the candidates, who appeared in the examination for selection to the post of Primary Teacher, before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by filing CWP No.5061/2001, titled Kunwar Pal and others vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, and the Hon'ble High Court, vide its judgment dated 31.05.2002 held that the benefit of reservation cannot be denied to the candidates the aforesaid on ground and directed the respondents to appoint such of the petitioners therein who were borm and brought up in Delhi but the certificate issued to them on the basis of the certificate issued to their fathers, who were migrants from other states. It was further directed that the petitioners who were so appointed would also be entitled to the consequential benefits of seniority and pay scale though in view of the fact that they had not been working for that period of time, they would not be entitled to the back wages for the said period. It was also directed that they will not be entitled for the wages for the said period, but they will be entitled for consequential benefits of seniority and pay scale. It is further stated that the said judgment was challenged in LPA No. 625/2002 and batch, and A O.A. No. 4582/2015 ative 7the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, vide its order dated 13.05.2005, Adminis st affirmed the same.
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the applicants were given the appointments in the year 2005-06 treating them as notional appointees w.e.f. 2002-
03. They were subsequently selected as Lecturer (Social Science) on o7.10.2009. It is the contention of the applicants that as per the said judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, they were also given seniority and other benefits, except fixation of pay, from March, 2003.
It is the contention of the applicants that as they were 4 treated as notional appointees w.e.f. 2002-2003, their pay and allowances ought to have been calculated from that year. They further contend that as their appointment has been treated w.e.f.
applicable, they also
2002-2003 when the GPF Scheme was are
entitled to be covered under GPF Scheme.
The applicants contend that without considering their date 5. in of appointment w.e.f. 2002-2003, the action of the respondents covering them under. GPF Scheme, is against the rules and the principles of natural justice. Aggrieved with the same, had given representations to the respondents in 2013, applicants action on such but the respondents have not taken any representations of the applicants. 0.A. No. 4582/2015 nistrat ative Adm/n T6. Respondents have filed their counter affidavit opposing the PA. It is stated that pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Kunwar Pal and others (supra), the seniority of the applicants have been fixed as per merit list of the post codes for which they have been selected.
However, as the applicants
have physically joined this Department after 01.01.2004,
therefore, they are eligible to be covered under CPF Scheme
instead of GPF Scheme, per the
as
policy of Government of India
prevailing at that time.
7. Heard Mr. M. K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the
applicants and Ms. Sangita Rai, learned counsel for the respondents, through video conferencing.
8. After hearing both the parties and perusing the pleadings on record, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the present OA is disposed of with the following directions
i) The respondents are directed to verify the case of the applicants as to whether they applied under the advertisement issued in the year 2000 for selection and appointment to various posts including the post of PGT under the post code 128/2000; appeared in the written examination held in the year 2001-2002 and O.A. No. 4582/2015 srative Admin/s were selected; and after publication of select list in 2005-2006, they were appointed;
ii) The respondents are further directed to verify as to when the final results were declared, offer of appointment was issued to the applicants, and the applicants accordingly joined as PGT treating them notional appointees
iii) After verification, if the department comes to the conclusion that the appointment of the applicants was treated to be w.e.f. 2002-2003 in pursuance of the advertisement issued in the year 2000 for the post of PGT, post code 128/2008, the case of the applicants will be decided in view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, titled Kunwar Pal and others (supra) upheld in LPA No. 625/20o2 (supra).
iv) The exercise, as ordained above, shall be completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10. 10. With the above directions, the instant OA stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Mohd. Jamshed) (Manjulà bas)
Member (A) Chairman
a5/gm