Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri S. C. Gupta vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi Through Its on 6 October, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI O.A. NO.1166/2009 This the 6th day of October, 2009 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) 1. Shri S. C. Gupta, F-183, Prashant Vihar, Outer Ring Road, Delhi-110083. 2. Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur W/O S. Sunder Rajan, R/O Flat No.80 Vikas Sheel Apartment, Sector 13, Rohini, Delhi. 3. Smt. Sumar Joshi W/O Pawan Kumar Joshi, R/O D-1/22, Rajasthali Apartments, Pitampura, Delhi. 4. Smt. Virender Lamba W/O G. S. Lamba, R/O 484, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi-110009. 5. Shri Daulat Ram Sharma S/O L. R. Sharma, R/O C-546, Street No.12, Majlis Park, Delhi. Applicants ( By Shri K. P. Gupta, Advocate ) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through its Secretary (Education), Old Secretariat, Delhi. 2. Director of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi, Directorate of Education, Old Secretariat, Delhi. 3. Assistant Director of Education (GOC), Government of NCT of Delhi, Directorate of Education, Old Secretariat, Delhi. Respondents ( By Ms. Jyoti Singh, Advocate ) O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
Shri S. C. Gupta and four others have filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking direction to be issued to the respondents to fix their pay in the pay scale of Rs.10000-325-15200 for the period they actually worked as Principal/Head of School/Head of Office along with grant of annual increments in the said pay scale with further direction to pay the arrears of pay and allowances with interest.
2. Brief facts as may be required for disposal of the present Application would reveal that the applicants during their posting as Vice Principal performed duties of Principal/Head of Office/Head of School in various senior secondary schools during the periods specified in para 4.1 of the Application, in compliance of the orders issued by their superiors. Such orders have been placed on records as Annexure A-6 to Annexure A-18B. Even though, they performed the duties of Principal/Head of Office/Head of School, as mentioned in para 4.2 of the Application, but they were paid salary in the pay scale of Rs.7500-250-12000 prescribed for Vice Principal, while they were entitled for payment of salary in the pay scale of Rs.10000-325-15200 prescribed for the post of Principal on the principle of quantum meriut for the period they performed duties of Principal. Applicants 1, 2 and 4 have since been promoted to the post of Principal on regular basis with effect from 1.5.2007, 5.3.2009 and 3.7.2006 respectively, whereas applicant no.3 is Vice Principal but is still holding the charge of Principal, and applicant no.5 has retired as Vice Principal w.e.f. 31.5.2008.
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have entered appearance and filed their counter reply contesting the cause of the applicants. The basic facts, however, as mentioned above, are not in dispute. It is, however, pleaded that the applicants are Vice Principals and they were simply declared as Head of Office under Rule 14 of Delegation of Financial Powers Rules read with Rule 142 of Central Treasury Rules. Rule 14 ibid empowers the departments of Central Government, Administrator and heads of departments to declare any gazetted officer subordinate to them as head of office for the purpose of the rules. Rule 142 of the Central Treasury Rules provides that the head of office may authorize any gazetted officer serving under him to sign a bill or order for him. It is also pleaded that in the absence of the applicants being appointed as Principal by selection, they would not be entitled to salary of that post. The post of Principal, it is further pleaded, is a selection post and the criteria for selection is laid down in the relevant recruitment rules, which would require certain essential and desirable qualifications in terms of duties and experience, and that a properly constituted DPC makes selection for the post of Principal and selection is in consultation with UPSC, and, therefore, no person can claim that he/she is working as Principal unless he/she is to meet the required criteria, and after having been recommended by the DPC, has been actually appointed as Principal. In the order passed under Rule 14 in the case of the applicants, it was stated that they would do these duties in addition to their duties and no extra remuneration would be paid. The applicants are said to have accepted these orders and joined the duties. They were given the designation of head of schools but there was no declaration in their case that they were being declared as head of schools under rule 14.
4. It is not in dispute that a similar matter came to be decided by this Tribunal in favour of the applicant in OA No.3230/2001 decided on 24.10.2002 in the matter of M. P. Singh v Government of NCT of Delhi & others. Writ against the order of the Tribunal came to be dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.8111/2002 on 22.3.2007 by a detailed order. SLP against the order passed by the High Court was dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court on 12.10.2007. Based upon the decision in the said OA confirmed by the High Court and Supreme Court, yet another OA No.2156/2008 in the matter of Smt. Satish Kanta Bansal & Others v Government of NCT of Delhi & Others was decided by this Tribunal in favour of the applicants of that case on 6.3.2009, and it is stated during the course of arguments that the said decision has also been complied with. Despite that, Ms. Jyoti Singh, learned counsel representing the respondents, would contend that the case of the applicants may not be covered by the decisions referred to above, inasmuch as, the applicants in the said cases had been given the designation of head of office and there was no declaration in their case that they were being declared as head of office under rule 14. Rule 14 on which reliance is placed, reads as follows:
Departments of the Central Government, Administrators and heads of Departments shall have power to declare any Gazetted Officer subordinate to them as the Head of an Office for the purpose of these rules.
Provided that not more than one Gazetted Officer shall be declared as head of Office in respect of the same office or establishment, unless such office or establishment is distinctly separate from one another. The distinction sought to be made by the learned counsel does not appear to be real. It would be seen that primarily, earlier cases came to be decided in favour of the applicants therein on the principle of quantum meriut. Reliance was inter alia placed upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Selvaraj v Lt. Governor of Island, Port Blair and Others [JT 1998 (4) SC 500]. The facts of the said case reveal that the appellant therein looked after the duties of Secretary (Scouts) from the date of order and was yet not paid salary for the work done by him as such. It was admitted position that the appellant was not regularly promoted to the post of Secretary (Scouts). He was regularly posted in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 and was asked to look after the duties of Secretary (Scouts). In fact, the case would further reveal that had that arrangement not been done, the appellant would have to be transferred to the interior islands where the post of PST was available, but inasmuch as, he was keen to stay in Port Blair, the arrangement, as mentioned above, was made. Despite the fact as mentioned above, it was held that the fact remains that the appellant had worked on the higher post though temporarily and in officiating capacity and that his salary was to be drawn during that time against the higher post. It was also not in dispute that the salary attached to the post of Secretary (Scouts) was in pay scale of Rs.1640-2900. Consequently, on the principle of quantum meriut the respondent authorities should have paid the appellant as per the emoluments available in the higher pay scale during the time he actually worked on the said post, though in an officiating capacity. It is too well settled a proposition of law that an employee would be entitled to the salary of the post on which he is made to work, and how and in what matter the order came to be passed directing the employee to discharge duties of a higher post, would be of no meaning and consequence. The principle of quantum meriut would be applicable.
5. It is true that in some of the orders it has been mentioned that no extra remuneration would be given to the applicants on their looking after the charge of Principal/Head of Office/Head of School, but that would not make any difference, as such orders, when an employee is made to work and shoulder higher responsibilities, have been held to carry no weight. In fact, with regard to mention in the orders that no extra remuneration would be paid, there were no arguments on that behalf during the course of hearing. The only contention raised was based upon rule 14 of Delegation of Financial Powers Rules.
6. We find that the case of the applicants would be completely covered in their favour by the decision of this Tribunal confirmed up to the Honble Supreme Court. We may only mention that directions given by this Tribunal in OA No.3230/2001 were modified by the High Court in its decision dated 22.3.2007 in WP(C) No.8111/2002, and that is why the same directions came to be issued while disposing of OA No.2156/2008 by this Tribunal vide its order dated 6.3.2009. We issue the same directions in this case as have been issued by us in OA No.2156/2008.
7. This Application is allowed in the manner fully indicated above, leaving, however, the parties to bear their own costs.
( Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda ) ( V. K. Bali ) Member (A) Chairman /as/