Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Krishan Chander Saini vs Delhi Cooprative Housing Finance ... on 23 January, 2024
1 OA No. 106/2019
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
OA No. 106/2019
Order reserved on: 04.01.2024
Order pronounced on: 23.01.2024
Hon'ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Krishan Chander Saini, aged 59 years,
S/o late Sh. Chatter Singh Saini,
Working as Accounts Officer in
Delhi Cooperative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.,
3/6, Siri Fort Institutional Area,
August Kranti Marg, New Delhi-49
R/o Flat No.R-10, CWC, NDMC Flat,
Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi-23
....Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
Versus
1. Delhi Cooperative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
3/6, Siri Fort Institutional Area,
August Kranti Marg, New Delhi-49
2. General Manager,
3/6, Siri Fort Institutional Area,
August Kranti Marg, New Delhi-49
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Saurabh Chadda)
2 OA No. 106/2019
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) In the present OA, the applicant seeks the following relief:
"(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 20.11.2017 and order dated 24.11.2016 (Annex.A/1 & A/2) and DPC proceedings only in respect of the applicant and only to the extent by which the applicant has not been promoted in the grade pay of Rs.8700/- w.e.f. 01.07.2013 and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to consider and to promote the applicant in the scale of pay band Rs.37400-67000+GP Rs.8700 w.e.f. 01.07.2013 with all consequential benefits including the arrears of difference of pay and allowances with due date with interest.
(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicants along with the costs of litigation."
2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the learned counsel for the applicant, are that the applicant was initially appointed in the office of respondents as Accountant on 01.03.1985 by following due process of selection. He was further promoted to the post of Accounts Officer and is working as such.
2.1 As per office order dated 14.11.1995 in respect of promotion policy, contractual employees will be eligible for promotion to a higher pay scale after he/she puts in five years of service in the existing grade. It is relevant to point out that in para 3.1 of the said order it was clearly stipulated that the contractual appointees will have all benefits of service 3 OA No. 106/2019 as are given to the existing employees of corporation including the in situ promotion wherever they will fulfill the eligibility conditions.
2.2 As per the promotion policy, all the posts have been divided into six groups on the basis of entry grade of a particular post and each group is having three to five further in-situ promotional pay scales. The applicant was appointed to the post of Accountant in the pay scale of Rs.425- 800/1640-2900.
2.3 After completion of five years of service, on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting held on 27.11.1998, the applicant was granted in-situ promotion in the grade of Rs.8000-13500 w.e.f. 01.07.1998 vide order dated 30.11.1998.
2.4 The respondents vide office order dated 05.09.2003 further promoted the applicant in the pay scale of Rs.10000- 15200 w.e.f. 01.07.2003.
2.5 On completion of further five years of service the applicant became eligible for grant of in-situ promotion in the next pay scale in the pay band of Rs.15600-39100+GP Rs.7600 w.e.f. 01.07.2008 and further in the grade pay of Rs.8700 w.e.f. 01.07.2013 but the same were not granted due to non-convening of DPC timely.
4 OA No. 106/20192.6 The respondents, however, vide impugned order dated 24.11.2016 promoted the applicant in the pay band of Rs.7600/- w.e.f. 01.07.2008 correctly but in respect of further promotion w.e.f. 01.07.2013, they decided to continue the applicant in the same scale whereas he should have been promoted in the grade pay of Rs.8700/-. The applicant was placed in grade pay of Rs.7600/- which is the highest pay scale in his cadre for which under Rule 4.8.1 of the promotion policy he should have been promoted in the next higher grade pay of Rs.8700/- w.e.f. 01.07.2013.
2.7 Applicant requested the Competent Authority for providing him a copy of the DPC minutes and copy of the agenda of the DPC meeting held on 24.11.2016, which were supplied to him by the respondents vide letter dated 02.11.2016.
2.8 It is clear from the agenda that the proposal put up before the DPC indicates that the applicant became eligible to be considered for promotion to the next grade pay of Rs.8700/- w.e.f. 01.07.2013 but the DPC without giving any reason or justification, recommended to continue the applicant in the same grade pay of Rs.7600/-. 2.9 Feeling aggrieved, the applicant made a detailed representation to the respondents on 25.10.2017 to consider 5 OA No. 106/2019 and grant him his due promotion in the grade pay of Rs.8700/- w.e.f. 01.07.2013. The respondents, however, vide impugned order dated 20.11.2017 rejected the same. Hence the OA.
3. Pursuant to the notices issued, the respondents entered appearance and filed their reply, vehemently opposing the claim of the applicant. It has been stated that the applicant joined the office of the respondents as an Accountant in the pay scale of Rs.425-15-500-EB-15-560-20-700-EB-800) which was revised by the DoP&T vide OM dated 31.07.1990 for Assistant Grade of Central Secretariat Service and Grade 'C' Stenographers of CSS services. The revision of pay scale was extended to the employees of DCHFC vide Board resolution dated 28.09.1992. Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure has directed vide OM dated 15.04.2004 that OM dated 31.07.1990 was meant exclusively for Assistants/Stenographers of the CSS/CSSS and this was not to be extended to autonomous organizations etc. It has been observed that autonomous organizations have adopted pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 to their Assistants/Stenographers inadvertently. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide their judgments dated 31.05.2002 and 18.12.2003 have specifically rejected the contentions of the employees of autonomous organizations, i.e.. KVS/NVS/ NBT 6 OA No. 106/2019 and NIEPA etc. The Assistants/Stenographers of autonomous bodies are not entitled for the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900. The High Court further directed to take corrective measures to withdraw the scale of Rs.1640-2900. The amount of pay and allowances already paid to the said employees was also directed to be recovered.
3.1 The designation of the Accountant was changed to Accounts Officer vide order dated 14.04.1998 as in-situ designation with specific stipulation that these in-situ changes in designation do not bestow any promotional rights. 3.2 The pay scales of the employees of DCHFC are divided into VI groups on the basis of entry grade where the entry grade of Rs.425-800 (Rs.1400-2300) is not part of any group mentioned in the pay scales of the employees of DCHFC. Hence the applicant is considered as employee of Group III. As such the financial upgradation needs to be dealt as per Group III only. As per clause 4.4.2 of the promotion policy of DCHFC employees who are recruited to the lower pay scale in a Group shall be eligible for being considered for promotion to the higher pay scales in that Group only. As per clause 4.4.3 of the promotion policy of DCHFC appointment to a higher pay scale in any other Group can only be by direct recruitment if and when a vacancy in that pay scale is advertised. Clause 4.8 of promotion policy is additional 7 OA No. 106/2019 measure to remove stagnation. The pay scale of Rs.15600- 39100 + Grade Pay of Rs.7600/- was granted to the applicant w.e.f. 01.07.2013. It has been submitted that the applicant never reached the stagnation level in the pay drawn by him. As such his claim is not maintainable. The respondents have further submitted that the OA is also barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone besides being devoid of merit.
4. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the pleadings on record.
5. Analysis:
5.1 The impugned order passed by the Competent Authority dated 20.11.2017 (Annexure A-1) reads as under:
"Reference to your representation dated 25.10.2017, kindly refer to the copy of the office notes, Promotion Policy of DCHFC, Agenda placed before the DPC and minutes of DPC provided to you which are self explanatory. Further the matter can be placed before the next DPC as and when it would be held."
5.2 The applicant further impugns the promotion order dated 24.11.2016 in so far as the Competent Authority has considered the proposal and granted in-situ promotion to the applicant, however, the same has not been granted in higher financial grade. He has been promoted in the same pay scale 8 OA No. 106/2019 on the basis of the recommendations of the DPC. The relevant part of the DPC recommendations is as under:-
S. Name of the Group Date of next In-situ Promotion as Additional Remarks No. Employee of Pay approved Measures to Scale (Pay scales as per 5th CPC/6th Remove CPC) Stagnation Next Pay Next Pay Next Pay Scale In Scale In Scale In Entry Entry Entry Grade Grade Grade Group Group Group 1 Sh. Krishan IV 01.07.2008 - - 01.07.2013 At the Chander Saini, highest level Accounts of his Group Officer w.e.f.
1.7.2008 15600- - - Continue in the 39100 + same scale GP 7600 5.3 It is not in dispute that the applicant has already superannuated from service on 31.12.2018. The ground urged in the present OA in support of the aforesaid relief is that as per the Agenda put before the DPC that the applicant was due for his promotion as per Rule 4.8.1 of promotion policy to the next higher scale of Group V in grade pay of Rs.8700/- w.e.f. 01.07.2013 but the DPC did not consider and recommend the same without assigning any reason or justification, and therefore, the minutes of the DPC are liable to be quashed on this sole ground only in respect of the applicant as nothing adverse was found pending against him. 5.4 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, relying upon the averment made in the counter reply would state that the applicant is not entitled to relief sought inasmuch as the designation of the Accountant was changed 9 OA No. 106/2019 to Accounts Officer vide order dated 14.04.1998 as in-situ designation with specific mention that these in-situ changes in designation will not bestow any promotional rights. He further relied upon clause 4.8 which reads as under:
"4.8 Additional measures to remove stagnation 4.8.1 If in the case of any employee the gap between the last promotion to the highest of the pay scales in the Group and the date of superannuation is 8 years or more, he may be considered for promotion to the next higher scale though not provided in the scheme of grouping of scales given in Annexure II."
6. To examine the issue, we have gone through the contents of the promotion policy as prevalent in the respondent organization. For the purpose of adjudication of the present matter, the relevant clauses for grant of promotion are as under:
"4.8 Additional measures to remove stagnation 4.8.1 If in the case of any employee the gap between the last promotion to the highest of the pay scales in the Group and the date of superannuation is 8 years or more, he may be considered for promotion to the next higher scale though not provided in the scheme of grouping of scales given in Annexure II.
4.8.2 If in spite of all the above provisions, any employee stagnates at the maximum of the pay scale, he may be granted one additional increment in a span of two years."
6.1 Examining the facts of the case, we find that the applicant had fulfilled the criteria/eligibility conditions as laid down in Clause 4.8.1 and 4.8.2 as stated herein-above. The aforesaid clause itself reflects that the applicant's case was to 10 OA No. 106/2019 be considered for in-situ promotion. The grant of in-situ promotion without any higher pay scale is meaningless. The applicant in terms of aforesaid rule position and promotional policy was entitled to the pay scale in Group V i.e. Rs.4100- 125-4850-150-5300.
6.2 It is also noticeable that as per the proposal by the DPC following was recorded:
"Sh. Krishan Chander Saini was appointed in scale 425-15- 500-EB-15-560-20-700-EB-800 on 1.3.1985. The Pay scale was revised in 1992 to scale 550-25-750-EB-30-900 (copy of Resolution of Board Meeting dated 28.9.1992 attached as Annexure-2). Next in-situ promotion into scale of 2000-60- 2300-EB-75-3200-100-3500 was given w.e.f. 1.7.1993. Thereafter next in-situ promotion of 8000-275-13500 was given to him on 1.7.1998 and subsequently next in-situ promotion of 10000-325-15200 was given to him on 1.7.2003. Presently he is in the level 4 of pay scale of Group IV. If considered for promotion next higher scale of Group IV at level 5 of 15600-39100 + GP 7600 w.e.f. 1.7.2008 which is the last pay scale of Group IV. If considered for further promotion as per rule 4.8.1 of R/R to next higher scale of Group V at level 4 of 37400 - 67000 + GP 8700 w.e.f. 1.7.2013."
6.3 We find that the said proposal is in consonance with Rule 4.8.1 and higher level of Group V w.e.f. 01.07.2013. Furthermore, the impugned order dated 20.11.2017 itself contemplated that the matter can be placed before the next DPC as and when it would be held.
7. Conclusion:
7.1 In view of the above, we quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 20.11.2017 and 24.11.2016.11 OA No. 106/2019
7.2 The respondents are directed to re-examine the applicant's case afresh by convening a review DPC for considering his further promotion to the next higher pay scale at Level IV of Rs.37400-67000 + GP 8700 w.e.f. 01.07.2013.
In case the applicant is found fit for the said grade, he would be granted the benefit of promotion only on a notional basis which would entitle him for refixation of his pay/pension as per rules. No arrears shall be payable to the applicant. 7.3. The OA is accordingly disposed of in the aforementioned terms.
8. No order as to costs.
(Manish Garg) (Anand Mathur) Member (J) Member (A) 'SD'