Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mohit Kumar Chauhan vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. Through on 17 February, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-231/2011
MA-103/2012
Reserved on : 15.02.2012.
Decided on : 17.02.2012.
Honble Sh. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A)
1. Mohit Kumar Chauhan,
S/o late Sh. Jeet Singh Chauhan,
R/o H.No. 57-A, 1093/Ward-I,
St. Johns Church Compound,
Mehrauli, New Delhi-30.
2. Shriniwas Bhardwaj,
S/o sh. Shiv Lal Sharma,
R/o Flat No. 1, Amrit Bhawan,
Vinay Marg, Chankya Puri,
New Delhi-21.
3. Ashish Jain,
S/o late Sh. Jagdish Chandra Jain,
R/o 51, Vidyut Nikunj, 112, I.P. Extension,
Patparganj, New Delhi-92.
4. Jai Singh,
S/o Sh. Ram Dayal,
R/o F2, CWC, Sarojini Nagar,
New Delhi-23.
5. S.K. Aggarwal,
S/o Sh. S.C. Aggarwal,
R/o 438/5A, Bhola Nath Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi. . Applicants
(through Sh. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate)
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. through:
1. The Lt. Governor through
The Chief Secretary,
Delhi Administration,
New Secretariat,
New Delhi.
2. The Chairperson,
New Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Town hall, Parliament Street,
New Delhi.
3. The Secretary,
New Delhi Municipal Council
Palika Kendra, Parliament Street,
New Delhi. . Respondents
(through Sh. Karan Minocha for Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Advocate)
O R D E R
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) The grievance of the applicants is that they have not been given the benefits granted to similarly placed employees vis-`-vis Sh. Rakesh Sharma who joined like them as Junior Engineer (Mechanical) and subsequently promoted to the rank of Asstt. Engineer (Electrical & Mechanical) (AE(E&M)). The applicants joined as Junior Engineers with the respondent long time back. As there was stagnation, the respondents introduced a time bound scheme of promotion to two higher scales in the hierarchy. One Sh. Rakesh Sharma, who was not given the aforesaid higher scales on promotion filed TA-1043/2009 before this Tribunal, which was decided on 17.11.2009 in his favour and the respondents were directed to grant the pay scale of Rs.2200-4100/- applicable to AE(E&M) under the Shiv Shankar Committee (SSC) pay scale w.e.f. 15.03.1994.
1.1 It is further submitted that Sh. Rakesh Sharma was granted the pay scale of Rs.7750-14500/- on completion of 10 years of service and Rs. 12500-19100/- ((pre-revised) on completion of 18 years of regular service. The representations of the applicants for grant of similar benefits have been rejected on the ground that the benefits grant to Sh. Rakesh Sharma was pursuant to a specific direction from a Court and could not be cited as a valid precedent to claim similar benefits.
2. We find that the respondents have stated the following in paragraph 4.3 of their counter reply:-
The contents of this Para 4.3 are wrong and denied. It is humbly submitted that the S.S. Payscale were granted to only certain AE (E&M) and in even in those cases, the said scales were granted only under directions of the Honble Court and not as policy decision by the answering Respondent. The respondents have also conceded that time bound promotion scales are applicable to the applicants on completion of 10 years and 18 years of regular service. It is not denied that the applicants are working in the Workshop of the respondent organization originally as JE (Mech.) and were similarly circumstanced as Sh. Rakesh Sharma who has been given the benefits of pay scales recommended by SSC.
3. We do not appreciate the logic that a benefit can be given only if the employees will come to a Court for enforcement of their rights not otherwise. It is not the case of the respondents that the claims of the applicants are admissible, or are contrary to their Scheme of Time Bound Promotion.
4. If the applicants are similarly placed as Sh. Rakesh Sharma and there are no other valid reasons to deny them the benefits granted to Sh. Rakesh Sharma, the respondent authorities are directed to re-examine the issue and extend the same benefits within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If there are valid reasons to deny them those benefits, they should pass a speaking and reasoned order under intimation to the applicants within the same period. The O.A. is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. A.K. Mishra) (G. George Paracken) Member (A) Member (J) /Vinita/