Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Gunjan Gupta vs North Dmc & Ors. Through on 22 September, 2014
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi O.A.No.3747/2013 Order Reserved on:17.09.2014 Order pronounced on 22.09.2014 Honble Shri V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J) Honble Shri P. K. Basu, Member (A) Gunjan Gupta W/o Sh. Sushil Kumar R/o 4/2903, Gali No.1-B Behari Colony Shahdara Delhi 110 032. Applicant (By Advocate: Sh. M.K.Bhardwaj) Versus North DMC & Ors. through The Commissioner North Delhi Municipal Corporation Civic Centre New Delhi. The Commissioner South Delhi Municipal Corporation Civic Centre New Delhi. The Director (Education Deptt.) South Delhi Municipal Corporation Civic Centre New Delhi. The Chairman Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board Karkardooma Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Ms Anupama Bansal) O R D E R By V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J):
In this OA, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
To declare the action of respondents in not fixing the pay of the applicant as Teacher (Primary) at par with her batchmates and juniors and denying benefits of Old Pension Scheme as illegal and issue directions for fixing the pay of applicant as Assistant Teacher/Teacher (Primary) at par with her batch mates given appointment in 2003 and regulate her Pension under Old Pension Scheme governed under CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 and not under New Pension Scheme made effective from 01.01.2004.
To direct the respondents to extend the benefits of order in OAs No.1795/2011 and another OA in case of Yogesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. MCD & Ors. in OA No.3719/2009 to the applicant.
To allow the OA with cost.
To pass such other and further orders which this Tribunal deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the case are that when the respondents issued an advertisement on 03.06.2002 for filling up of the post of Assistant Teacher and various other posts, the applicant applied pursuant to the said advertisement. The respondents declared the results of the general category persons and gave appointments to the said general category candidates in June, 2003 but the applicants appointment was delayed due to pending litigations in the Court, and ultimately, the applicant was appointed as Teacher (Primary) on 31.05.2004 and also fixed the seniority of the applicant as per the merit in the written examination. However, the respondents did not give the benefits of pay fixation and old pension scheme benefits as given to her batchmates. It is stated that although some of the similarly placed persons have been accorded the said benefits but in the case of applicant, the said benefits were not accorded. Hence, the present OA.
3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant, at the very outset, stated that this Tribunal allowed various similar OAs, and one of which is the OA No.1795/2011 (Lalit Kumar & Others v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.) decided on 01.08.2012, and the applicant herein is also identically placed to the applicants in the said OA No.1795/2011.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has denied that the applicant is similarly placed as that of the applicants in OA No.1795/2011. Hence, the relief claimed by the applicant, who joined after 01.01.2004, cannot be granted, and accordingly, the OA is liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and have gone through the pleadings on record.
6. While examining the matter on the contentions raised by both the parties, it is noticed that when one of the contentions taken by the respondents in the said OA No.1795/2011 was that the applicants therein were appointed only in the year 2006 they are not entitled for any increments from the year 2003, that is the year in which the general category candidates belonging to their batch have been appointed, and therefore, they cannot claim seniority in the cadre of Assistant Teacher (Primary) when they were not even born in that cadre, this Tribunal dealt with all such contentions and finally passed the following order:
9. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we allow this OA with the direction to the respondents to grant notional seniority to the applicant as per their respective positions in the merit list prepared by the DSSSB in the year 2002. They shall also be given appointments on notional basis from the dates the first general category official has joined duty. Consequently, they will be entitled for notional increments and fixation of pay and other benefits like GPF, Pension, etc. as admissible to their batch mates belonging to the unreserved category. The respondents shall pass appropriate orders in this regard within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
7. Recently, based on the aforesaid Judgement, we have also decided the OA No.924/2013 and batch, the applicants therein also, in pursuance of an Advertisement issued in the year 2002, for selection to the posts of Assistant Teacher in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), applied and participated in the selection process. The respondents declared the results of most of the candidates in December, 2002 and on issuing of offer of appointment letters during June, 2003, those candidates were allowed to join duty. However, the respondents have not declared the results of the applicants and certain others on the ground that they do not belong to the reserved communities of Delhi and as such they are not entitled to reservation in Delhi and accordingly withheld the results of the applicants and others, therein, for parity of reasons, the said OA and batch, was allowed as under:
10. In the circumstances, and in view of the fact that the applicants are similarly situated like the applicants in OA No.1795/2011 and OA No.229/2013, the OA No.924/2013 is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant notional seniority to the applicants as per their respective positions in the merit list prepared by the DSSSB in the year 2002. They shall also be given appointments on notional basis from the date the first General Category candidate has joined duty. Consequently, they will be entitled for notional increments and fixation of pay and other benefits like GPF, Pension, etc. as admissible to their batch mates, belonging to the Unreserved category. However, they are not entitled for any arrears of pay. The respondents shall pass appropriate orders in this regard within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.
11. In view of the aforesaid orders passed in OA No.924/2013, for parity of reasons, the respective M.As filed for joining together and the O.A.No.928/2013, O.A.No.930/2013 and O.A.No.938/2013 are also accordingly allowed in terms of the directions issued to the respondents. No costs.
8. In the circumstances and for parity of reasons, the OA is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant notional seniority to the applicant as per her position in the merit list prepared by the DSSSB in the year 2002. She shall also be given fixation of pay on notional basis from the date the first General Category candidate has joined duty. Consequently, she will be entitled for notional increments and other benefits like GPF, Pension, etc. as admissible to her batch mates, belonging to the Unreserved category. However, she is not entitled for any arrears of pay. The respondents shall pass appropriate orders in this regard within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.
(P. K. Basu) (V. Ajay Kumar) Member (A) Member (J) /nsnrvak/