Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Kamal Pal Sharma vs Delhi Development Authority on 12 February, 2026
1
Item No.44/ C-5 OA No.310/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 310/2023
This the 12th day of February, 2026
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)
Sh. Kamal Pal Sharma, Ex-LDC (age-68yes)
s/o Sh. Ram Lal Sharma
House No.512, Gali No. 19, Chandan Vihar,
Delhi-110084.
... Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Prem Chand)
Versus
1. Chairman,
Delhi Development Authority
Vikas Sadan, INA,
New Delhi-110023.
2. Commissioner (Personnel)
Delhi Development Authority
Vikas Sadan, INA,
New Delhi.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee)
DAYADAYAWATI
2026.02.26
WATI 16:46:59
+05'30'
2
Item No.44/ C-5 OA No.310/2023
ORDER (ORAL)
By Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A):-
The present OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, seeking the following reliefs:
―i) Quash and set aside impugned order dated 29.1.2015 whereby the applicant has been denied 2nd ACP.
ii) Direct the respondents to grant 2nd financial upgradations to the applicant from 20.11.2000 under ACP Scheme 9.8.1999 on completion of his 24 years regular service.
iii) Direct the respondents to grant 3rd financial upgradation to the applicant on completion of his 30 years regular service on 20.11.2006 in accordance with the guidelines of MACP Scheme dated 19.5.2009.
iv) Any other order(s) or relief which this Hon'ble Court as deemed just and proper in facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.‖ 2.1 The factual matrix of the case is that the applicant initially joined the services of the respondents as a Workcharge-Chowkidar w.e.f. 20.11.1976. He was subsequently appointed as a regular Security Guard w.e.f. 13.07.1979. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of LDC and joined the promotional post on 15.05.1989. While working as LDC and looking after the Slum and J.J. Department, he was arrested in connection with FIR No. 32/08 dated DAYADAYAWATI 2026.02.26 WATI 16:46:59 +05'30' 3 Item No.44/ C-5 OA No.310/2023 25.09.2008 under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was sent to judicial custody on 26.09.2008 and was released on bail on 04.10.2008. The applicant was repatriated from the Slum and J.J. Department of MCD vide office order dated 05.12.2008. He was placed under deemed suspension w.e.f. the date of his arrest, i.e., 25.09.2008, vide order dated 02.12.2008. The respondents-MCD reinstated the applicant in service vide order dated 18.01.2012. In the meantime, the applicant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2½ years along with a fine of Rs. 7,500/- by the learned Special Judge, Delhi, under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The applicant remained absent from duty from 16.04.2012 to 05.01.2013. After being granted bail by the High Court of Delhi vide order dated 04.01.2013, he rejoined his duties with the respondents. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 28.02.2013 was issued to the applicant as to why he should not be removed from service on account of his conviction in the criminal case. The applicant submitted his reply to the said notice.
2.2 After considering his reply, the respondents removed him from service vide order dated 21.06.2013. Thereafter, the applicant submitted a representation dated 10.11.2014 to the DAYADAYAWATI 2026.02.26 WATI 16:46:59 +05'30' 4 Item No.44/ C-5 OA No.310/2023 respondents-DDA seeking grant of 2nd ACP under the ACP Scheme. Vide communication dated 09.01.2015, the respondents informed him that he had not passed the departmental type test and, therefore, was not eligible for grant of the 2nd ACP. Subsequently, the applicant submitted another representation dated 30.11.2018, followed by reminder representations dated 14.06.2019, 19.11.2019, and 15.12.2020, seeking grant of financial upgradation under the ACP/MACP Scheme. As the respondents did not give any response to his aforesaid representations, the applicant filed the present OA seeking the aforementioned reliefs.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant remained in the service of the respondents, DDA/MCD, from 20.11.1976 till his removal on 21.06.2013. It is submitted that he had completed more than 12 years of regular service. It is further contended that upon the introduction of the ACP Scheme in 1999, the applicant became entitled to the benefit of the first ACP w.e.f. 09.08.1999. After completion of 24 years of service, he ought to have been granted the second ACP w.e.f. 20.11.2000. It is also submitted that after completion of 30 years of service, the DAYADAYAWATI 2026.02.26 WATI 16:46:59 +05'30' 5 Item No.44/ C-5 OA No.310/2023 applicant became entitled to the third financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme w.e.f. 21.11.2006. 4.1 Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant was placed under deemed suspension w.e.f. 25.09.2008 and remained under suspension till he was reinstated in service w.e.f. 18.02.2012. Thereafter, he was removed from service vide order dated 26.01.2013. It is contended that since the applicant was removed from service, he is not entitled to any benefits in respect of his past service. In other words, the applicant forfeits all benefits which would otherwise have accrued to him for the period of service rendered prior to his removal. It is further submitted that the applicant did not pass the prescribed Hindi type test, which was a mandatory requirement for grant of subsequent financial upgradations. Therefore, he was not eligible for financial upgradation after completion of 20 years of service w.e.f. 2006, nor for the second ACP upon completion of 24 years of service w.e.f. 20.11.2000, nor for the third MACP upon completion of 30 years of service w.e.f. 20.11.2006. 4.2 Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to Rule 24 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which provides as under:
―24. Forfeiture of service on dismissal or removal.--
DAYADAYAWATI
2026.02.26
WATI 16:46:59
+05'30'
6
Item No.44/ C-5 OA No.310/2023
(1) Dismissal or removal of a Government servant from a service or post entails forfeiture of his past service.‖ 4.3 It is further submitted that the applicant had earlier filed OA No. 2237/2021, and this Tribunal, vide order dated 08.10.2021, directed the respondents to consider the pending representation dated 15.12.2020 of the applicant by passing a reasoned and speaking order within the stipulated period.
Pursuant thereto, the respondents, vide order dated 06.01.2022, considered the representation dated 15.12.2020 and held that:
―......AND WHEREAS the undersigned has carefully considered the representation and gone through the provisions of Rule 24 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 which provides that dismissal or removal of a Govt servant from a service or post entails forfeiture of his past service Further, Rule 9(1) of the CCS(Leave) Rules 1972 provides that any claim to leave to the credit of a Government servant, who is dismissed or removed or who resigns from Govt service, ceases from the date of such dismissal or removal or resignation The Rule 39 (3) of Leave Rules also does not have any provision for payment of leave encashment to dismissed/ removed employees Therefore, it is clear that Sh Kamal Pal Sharma misquoted the Rule 24 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and rule.‖ 4.4 Referring to the provisions of Rule 24 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant cannot claim any benefit pertaining to his past service, which has not been granted by the respondents because he has been removed from service. It DAYADAYAWATI 2026.02.26 WATI 16:46:59 +05'30' 7 Item No.44/ C-5 OA No.310/2023 is contended that, in terms of Rule 24 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, removal from service entails forfeiture of past service. Once the past service stands forfeited, the applicant cannot claim any benefit for the period prior to his removal from service on 26.06.2013.
4.5 As regards to the passing of Hindi typing Test, the learned counsel for respondents refers to paragraph 4.2 of the counter affidavit which reads as under:-
―4.2 That the contents of para 4.2 of the Original Application are wrong hence denied. It is submitted that he was promoted as LDC vide EO No. 1600 dated 12.05.1989 inter alia subject to the condition that he will have to qualify the typing test in English/Hindi @ prescribed speed of 30/25 wpm respectively within one year failing which he would not be entitled to draw any increment. The first ACP was not admissible as the applicant got promotion to the post of LDC/JSA. As far as 2nd ACP is concerned, it is submitted that the applicant was not eligible for the same as he failed to qualify the typing test as per the condition of his promotion to the post of LDC. Further, he produced a copy of Hindi typewriting examination, July -1993 issued by the Department of Official Language, Ministry of Home Affairs with his letter dated 10.11.2014, but since his name was not sponsored by DDA for the said Hindi typewriting examination to the Ministry of Home & Affairs, therefore, the said result was not valid for purpose of grant of 2nd ACP. DDA has rejected his claim for grant of 2nd ACP vide its office letter No.F2(13)89/PB-III/178 dated 29.01.2015. It would also be seen that the result of July, 1993 as submitted in 2014 i.e. after 21 years. Since the claim of the Applicant was rejected on 10.11.2014, the present OA is barred by limitation as he has taken nine years to file the O.A. He has wrongly mentioned the period of delay as 1516 days in his prayer vide MA NO.2336/2021 seeking condonation of delay in filing the O.A. True DAYADAYAWATI 2026.02.26 WATI 16:46:59 +05'30' 8 Item No.44/ C-5 OA No.310/2023 copy of the office letter No.F2(13)89/PB-III/178 dated 29.01.2015 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE.‖
5. In rejoinder, learned counsel for applicant submits that at the time of eligibility of second ACP w.e.f. 20.11.2000 and 3rd MACP w.e.f. 01.09.2008 no departmental or judicial proceedings were pending against the applicant. As regards of passing of Hindi type test, learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has passed the Hindi type Test conducted by the Department of Official Languages Ministry of Home Affairs. Hence this condition cannot be held against the applicant for not granting the second ACP and the 3rd MACP benefits.
6.1 Heard both the counsels.
6.2 The basic issue in the present case is whether the applicant, who was removed from service vide order dated 21.06.2013, prior to his due date of superannuation on 30.08.2013, is entitled to any service benefits for the period preceding his removal from service.
6.3 The respondents have invoked Rule 24 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, contending that the applicant's past service stands forfeited on account of his removal from service. Once the past service has been forfeited, the applicant DAYADAYAWATI 2026.02.26 WATI 16:46:59 +05'30' 9 Item No.44/ C-5 OA No.310/2023 cannot claim any benefit pertaining to the said period, even if such benefits had otherwise accrued to him. 6.4 The applicant had earlier agitated his claim for grant of the second MACP. However, the respondents rejected the said claim vide order dated 29.01.2015. The applicant has not challenged the said order in the present OA. 6.5 The respondents have specifically taken the plea of forfeiture of service under Rule 24 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 in paragraph 4.A.8 of their counter affidavit, relying upon order dated 06.01.2022, annexed as Annexure R-3. The reason assigned by the respondents, namely that the applicant had not passed the Hindi Type Test, is not tenable in view of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and the admission made by the respondents in paragraph 4.2 of the counter affidavit. However, insofar as the issue of forfeiture of service is concerned, it is our considered view that the applicant's past service stood forfeited on account of his removal from service vide order dated 21.06.2013. Consequently, he is not entitled to claim any benefit for the period prior to his removal from service on 21.06.2013.
DAYADAYAWATI
2026.02.26
WATI 16:46:59
+05'30'
10
Item No.44/ C-5 OA No.310/2023
7. In view of what has been recorded hereinabove, the present OA lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(Rajveer Singh Verma) (Dr. Chhabilendra Roul)
Member (J) Member (A)
/daya/
DAYADAYAWATI
2026.02.26
WATI 16:46:59
+05'30'