Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Priti Pandey vs Delhi Cooprative Housing Finance ... on 16 October, 2025
1
Item No. 73 (C-3) O.A. No.1581/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 1581/2017
/2017
Reserved on: 23
23.09.2025
Pronounced on:
on:16.10.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Priti Pandey
Aged: 50 Years
W/o Sh. Rakesh Pandey
Working as Stenographer Grade-I
Grade
Delhi Co-Operative
Operative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.
3/6, Siri Fort Institutional Area
August Kranti Marg, New Delhi-49
Delhi
R/o 89-C,
C, Manohar Kunj
Gautam Nagar, New Delhi-110049
Delhi
...Applicant
(By Advocate:
vocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
Sharma
Versus
1. Delhi Co--Operation
Operation Finance Corporation Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
3/6, Siri Fort Institutional Area,
August Kranti Marg, New Delhi-49
Delhi
2. General Manager,
Delhi Co-Operative
Operative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.,
3/6, Siri Fort Institutional Area,
August Kranti Marg, New Delhi-49
Delhi
...Respondents
(By Advocate:
Advocate Mr. Saurabh Chadda)
2
Item No. 73 (C-3) O.A. No.1581/2017
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
In the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant seeks the following reliefs:-
reliefs:
(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to "(i) pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 24.11.2016 only in respect of the applicant and only to the extent of treating the applicant as a Group III employee and not granting the 1st and 2nd in situ promotions, declaring that the same is illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to grant 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th in situ promotions to the applicant in the grade pay of Rs.
4600 w.e.f. 31.12.1999, grade pay o of Rs. 5400 w.e.f. 31.12.2004, grade pay of Rs. 6600 w.e.f. 31.12.2009, and grade pay of Rs. 7600 w.e.f. 31.12.2014, with all consequential benefits as directed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide judgment dated 12.08.2016.
(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant along with the costs of litigation."
2. Narrating the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted as under:
2.1. The applicant was initially appointed as a Trainee on 31.12.1993 in the office of the respondents and, upon successful completion of her training, was appointed to the post of Stenographer Grade-I Grade in the pay scale of Rs. 1640 1640-
2900 (later revised to Rs. 5500-9000) 5500 9000) w.e.f. 31.12.1994, as per the selection committee committee decision dated 07.07.1995 and 3 Item No. 73 (C-3) O.A. No.1581/2017 office order dated 14.11.1995.. This scale corresponds to a Group IV post.
post The said office order provided that all contractual employees, upon completion of five years' service,, would be eligible for in-situ situ promotions promotions, and contractual appointees would receive benefits at par with regular employees, employees including in-situ situ promotions.
2.2. Despite fulfilling all conditions, the applicant was denied her due in-situ in promotions, 1st (w.e.f. 31.12.1999) and 2nd (w.e.f. 31.12.2004), 31.12.2004 without any valid justification. After regularization on 25.07.2005 25.07.2005, and subsequent litigation, including two rounds of OAs and a Writ Petition (W.P. No. 1343/2015), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court Court, in its judgment dated 12.08.2016, 12.08.2016, upheld the applicant's entitlement to in-situ in situ promotions based on the policy dated 14.11.1995 and directed consideration of the same with consequential benefits. However, vide impugned order dated 24.11.2016, 24.11.2016, the respondents arbitrarily denied the 1st and 2nd in-situ in promotions, wrongly treating the applicant as a Group III employee,, and granted her only the 3rd and 4th in-situ in promotions w.e.f. 31.12.2009 and 31.12.2014,, but at pay scales corresponding to the 1st and 4 Item No. 73 (C-3) O.A. No.1581/2017 2nd promotions, promotions, effectively defeating the benefit of promotion altogether. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that this t amounts to a virtual reversion from Group IV to Group III, III after 22 years of service service, without any notice, justification, or opportunity to be heard, which is completely illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice.
justice. Repeated representations were made but were rejected without due application of mind. Hence, this Original Application.
2.3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that he action of the respondents in retrospectively retrospectively treating the applicant as a Group III employee, despite her appointment and regularization in a Group IV post with the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900, 2900, is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and amounts to an unauthorized reversion.
reversion. Such reclassification, af after over two decades of service, was done without any notice or opportunity of hearing, hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
justice Moreover, it is in blatant disregard of the binding directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal and Hon'ble Delhi High Court, Court, which had clearly held the applicant is entitled to her due in-situ in situ promotions from 1999, 2004, 5 Item No. 73 (C-3) O.A. No.1581/2017 and 2009; the failure to comply with these directions amounts to willful disobedience and is liable to be viewed as contempt of court.
court. It is a settled positio position of law that promotion consideration in a fair and timely manner is a legal and constitutional right, right, protected under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Constitution. The respondents, having consistently treated the applicant as a Group IV employee, are now estopped estopp from altering that position, especially in the absence of any valid reason or justification. Furthermore, the initial pay fixation and appointment orders, based on Selection Committee recommendations and duly acted upon, are binding and cannot be unilaterally overturned after the lapse of such a long period.
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the app applicant has not approached this Tribunal with clean hands and has deliberately concealed material facts.
facts. Notably, she accepted the offer of appointment made pursuant to the Selection Committee's recommendation dated 10.11.2003, wherein she was continued in the pay scale of Rs. 5500 5500-9000 (pre-
6Item No. 73 (C-3) O.A. No.1581/2017 revised 1640-2900) 1640 2900) for the period from 31.12.1999 to 30.12.2004. This This acceptance was reiterated in her letter dated 03.03.2005. Having voluntarily accepted the terms and conditions, the applicant is now estopped from turning around and challenging the very basis of her appointment after the lapse of nearly two decades. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that no order of reversion was ever passed against the applicant. The DPC in 2001 only observed that she ought to have been placed in Group III, but this observation never culminated in any formal action to alter her group group status. The pay scale of Rs.
1640-2900 2900 was initially granted to her erroneously, and the subsequent decisions only rectified that mistake. There was no illegal reversion at any stage. The Departmental Promotion Committee considered considered her case multiple ttimes, i.e., in 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2016, and the decisions not to grant higher pay scales at earlier stages were within the DPC's competence and discretion, based on eligibility and suitability. It is a settled principle of service jurisprudence that there re is no vested right to promotion; the only right is to be considered, which has been duly complied with. 7 Item No. 73 (C-3) O.A. No.1581/2017 3.2. Moreover, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there has been no violation of any court direction. The Hon'ble High Court only dir directed that the applicant's case be considered, and in compliance thereof, the DPC granted her two in-situ in situ promotions with effect from 31.12.2009 and 31.12.2014 respectively. There is thus no contempt or willful disobedience. It is a also submitted that the present p Application pplication is hopelessly barred by delay and laches, as the decisions challenged date back to 2003 and 2005, and the applicant had accepted those decisions without protest for many years. Entertaining the relief now would not only unsettle long long-standing administrative decisions but also create anomalies and adversely affect the service structure of similarly placed employees.
3.3. In view of the above submissions, learned counsel for the respondents prayed that the Or Original Application be dismissed.
4. In rejoinder to the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the 8 Item No. 73 (C-3) O.A. No.1581/2017 applicant reiterated that the applicant was rightly appointed in Group IV in the scale of Rs.1640 Rs.1640-2900, and after completing five years of service, service, became entitled to timely in-situ situ promotions which were arbitrarily denied without justification or notice. The action of treating the applicant retrospectively as Group III and denying earlier promotions is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of settled law and principles of natural justice.
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
6. ANALYSIS :
6.1 In the factual matrix of the case, the records reveal that in the minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting held on 29.10.2001, the applicant's case for in situ promotion was deferred, with the following observation:
"In view of the above facts, prima prima-facie Ms. Priti Pandė ouglit to have been appointed in Group III, whereas in the proposal submitted to tlic Departinental Promotion Committee she has been shown as a Group IV employee. It is, therefore, desirable that the case of Ms. Priti Pande be deferred for the time being. After examining all necessary records and past decisions of the Board and considering the entire circumstances of the case, her 9 Item No. 73 (C-3) O.A. No.1581/2017 case may be placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee by the Managing Managing Director for approval by circulation."
6.2 The applicant's case was further deferred as per the minutes of the DPC meeting held on 26.08.2003, with the following observation:
"After completion of her one year trainee period for consideratoin of her her placement in the regular grade on contract baeis, Board of Directors in the meeting held on 4.1.1995 has constituted a committee consists of three members. The Committee in its meeting held on 7.7.95 has recommended her case for the placement in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 1640 2900 (Rs. 5500 - 9000) and the report of the Cornrnittee was placed in the meeting Hold on 25.9.1995 and it was resolved to services as regularise her recommendations of the Committee. per theAccordingly, was she appointed as a Stenograp Stenographer Gr.l vide office order dated 14.11.1995 in the pay scale of Rs. 1640 - 2900 (Rs. 5500 - 9000) on five years contract w.e.f. 31.12.1994 and contract agreement was also signed."
6.3 The applicant's case was placed before the Select Committee in its meeting meeting held on 10.02.2005, along with the following note:
"3.) Smt. Priti Pandey, was appointed on 12.1993 as a Stenographer Trainee for one year on a consolidated compensation of Rs.2000/-
Rs.2000/ per month, vide office order No. F.17(20)/93-94/DCHFS/9906 F.17(20)/93 94/DCHFS/9906 dated 14.01.1994.
After completion of one year trainee, she was offered the post of Stenographer Gr I vide order No. 20(272)/95 20(272)/95- 90/DCHFC/2387 dated 14.11.1995 in the Pay Scale of Rs. 1640-60-2600-EB-75-2900 1640 2900 (Revised Rs.5500 Rs.5500-175- 9000) on five year contract basis w.e.fw.e.f. 31.12.1994.
Accordingly, a contract agreement for 5 years services w.e.f. 31.12.1994 has been executed on 28.11.1995. 10 Item No. 73 (C-3) O.A. No.1581/2017 Thereafter, on completion of her five year contract services on 30.12.1999, the case was placed before the Selection Committee during the the month of October, 2003 wherein it was decided to appoint her on further five years contract basis in the Pay Scale of Rs. 5500 5500-175- 9000 w.e.f. an office order No. 17(60)/2003 17(60)/2003- 2004/DCHFC/3064 dated 10.11.2003 was 31.12.1999. Accordingly, issued to her.
After Af ter receiving the aforesaid order, Instead of accepting the offer she represented to the Managing Director vide her letter dated 17.11.2003 for her appointment in a promotional scale of Rs. 6500-200 6500 200-10500 and sought an appointment. The Managing Director wa was of the view that before giving an appointment to her, the General Manager may hear her and explain the decision. Accordingly, the General Manager heard her in detail and during the course of hearing, she desired to submit her written statement, which she submitted on 27. 27.11.2003. She has again given a letter letter dated 23.12.2003 wherein she has asked for the supply of coples of the documents based on which the Selection Committee had taken the decision in her case.
Thereafter, the office has sought some clari clarifications from her in response to her letter dated 23.12.2003, which she has submitted on 01.01.2004. The office again given her opportunity on 20.02.2004 to comply with the orders dated 10.11.2003 within 15 days. Thereafter, she again represented on 06.03.2004 06.03.2004 for the consideration of her case followed by a reminder dated 14.07.2004 for which we have responded her on 16.07.2004, wherein she was again advised to comply with the orders dated 13.11.2003. She again represented on 02.08.2004 and the Managing Director Director has given an opportunity to Smt. Priti Pandey for the personal hearing on 27.11.2004, which is followed by an office order dated 23.02.2005, wherein she has been advised to act by complying with the order dated 10.11.2003 within 15 days. Accordingly Accordingly, she has accepted the same on 04.03.2005 and submitted her acceptance along with contract agreement duly signed and witnessed on a stamp paper of Rs 50/ 50/-. On receipt of her above referred acceptance of terms and conditioris, a contract agreement has alrea already been put up on 04.03.2005 for another five years w.e.f. 31.12.1999 in the pay Scale of Rs. 5500 5500-175-9000.
11Item No. 73 (C-3) O.A. No.1581/2017 This contract agreement has also been expired on 30.12.2004, therefore, the matter is placed below for consideration of renewal of her contract for further five years. If the case is considered for the next higher pay scale in her group, it will be Rs. 6500 6500-200-10500.
The matter is placed for the perusal for placement before the Selection Committee."
6.4 The records further reveal that the minutes of the DPC meeting held on 26.10.2016 contain the following observation:
Relevant extracts of Proceedings of the Departmental Promotion "Relevant Committee II held on 24.11.2016 In the Departmental Promotion Committee he held on 26.10.2016 agenda was discussed in detail, orders reserved and the committee members were of the view that suitable orders be passed within one month. In compliance, meeting notice vide letter no. F.No.68(1)/2016 F.No.68(1)/2016-2017/DCHFC/1789 dated 18.11.2016 was send.
The meeting fixed for 22.11.2016 was postponed for 24.11.2016. Following participated in the meeting on 24.11.2016 :
1. Smt. Rinku Dhugga, Managing Director ................................................
................................................Chairperson
2. Shri. Binay Bhushan, General Manager ...................................... Member Secretary
3. Ms. Tripti Shukla, Director, DCHFC .................................................... Member
4. Sh. Prashant Kumar Tomar, .................................................... Member Director, DCHFC ...............................................
The Departmental Promotion Committee -2 2 passed the following orders:
S.N Name of Grou Date of next In-situ situ Promotion as Addition Remar o. the p of approved (Pay scales as per 5th al ks Employee Pay CPC/6th CPC) Measure Scale s to Remove Stagnati on Next pay Next pay Next Pay Next Pay scal in scale in Scale In Scale in entry entry Entry next grade grade Grade higher group group Group Group 12 Item No. 73 (C-3) O.A. No.1581/2017 5 Smt. Priti III 31.12.200 31.12.20 31.12.20 ---
Pandey 4 09 14
Stenograp
her Gr-I
Her case 9300- 9300
9300-
was 34800 + 34800 +
placed in GP 4600 GP 5400
the DPC
held on
10.3.2005
but
nothing is
mentione
d in
minutes
about her
case.
Continue
in the
same
scale.
6.5. There is no plausible explanation emerging from the proceedings of the DPC or the Select Committee as to why the case of the applicant was deferred. It is an undisputed fact that the case of the applicant was governed by the Service Rules and the Promotion Promotion Policy in force as on 14.11.1995. The said scheme had been operational with effect from 01.07.1988. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said policy are extracted below:
"2.
2. PROMOTION POLICIES
(i) In-situ In Promotions 2.1 DCHFC, being a small organisation having one or at the most two grades in each category of posts, the Board has noted that the conventional system of promotions, i.e., as and when vacancies arise in the higher grade(s), 13 Item No. 73 (C-3) O.A. No.1581/2017 will not be suitable. It has, there therefore, been decided to introduce an In-situ situ Promotion Scheme Scheme, the salient features of which are as follows:
Every regular employee will be eligible for promotion to a higher pay scale after he puts in five years of service in the existing grade. For this purpose, six groups of pay scales scales, containing 4-6 6 grades in eacheach, within which promotions may be effected, have been prescribed and the same are shown in the Appendix.
A Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) headed by the Chairman or the Managing Director of the Corporation, depending on the level of the post, will assess fitness of eligible employees and make recommendations about their suitability for promotion.
The scheme comes into force retrospectively from 1.7.1988. The pay of employees, who are recommended for promotion by DPC, will be fixed in the higher scale notionally from the date when it became due (consequent on completion of the required service). Arrears of pay and allowances in the higher scale will, however, be paid with effect from om 25.9.95, the date from which all the recent decisions of the Board are being implemented.
In the case of an employee where the gap between last promotion under the scheme and his retirement on superannuation is (eight) 8 years or more, he may be promoted d to the next higher scale, though that scale is not included in the concerned group of pay scales.
Notwithstanding the above scheme of promotions, if any employee stagnates at the maximum of his pay scale, one additional increment be given to him in a span of two years.
All the higher grades to which promotions are made will be termed as non non-functional and the employees concerned may, in the discretion of the DCHFC, be asked to continue to perform the same functions even after promotion to a higher grade. Thus, every employee will be entitled to at least 3 3-5 promotions in his total service with the Corporation if the employee is otherwise considered fit for promotion based on his performance and other relevant factors.
(ii) Functional Promotions:
14
Item No. 73 (C-3) O.A. No.1581/2017 2.2 Apart from the in-situ situ system of promotions described above, 50% of the vacancies arising in the specific groups of posts upto and including the level of Manager, be filled by promotion which involves assumption of higher duties and responsibilities by the promotee. Necessary provision to this effect has been promotee.
made in the Recruitment Rules for the post concerned.
3. RECRUITMENT POLICY The organisation being run with limited number of hands and in view of the fact that DCHFC has to serve a large number of loanees, specially as a result of the recent policy changes under which housing loan may be sanctioned to individuals also as against Cooperative Societies earlier, the Board deems it necessary that efficiency, commitment and output of the employees is maintained at an optimum level. The personnel management policies have been reoriented to meet the wider role now set for the Corporation. Accordingly, the Board has decided to make appointments to all posts on contract basis for a period of 5 years at a time. The br broad features of this policy are -
1. Direct Recruitment to posts in the Corporation will be by open advertisement as at present, by means of competitive selection with which generally outside experts are also associated.
2. The appointment will be for an init initial period of 5 years each, depending on the following factors:
(a) the performance, commitment and the conduct of the Individual;
(b) continued requirement of the post based on work load at the time of renewal; and
(c) willingness of the employee to serve for another term.
3.1 The contractual appointees will have all the benefits of servico as are given to the existing employees of the Corporation, including the in in-situ promotion wherever they fulfill the eligibility conditions.
15Item No. 73 (C-3) O.A. No.1581/2017 3.2 The above provisions wi will also apply to the persons who have been working on ad hoc basis or on fixed remuneration and are subsequently approved for appointment on regular basis. 3.3 The existing employees will continue to be governed by the terms and conditions of service' underr which they were recruited. They will, however, have an option to change over to the new system of contract service if that is considered favourable by them. addition, it has been decided to apply relaxed standards of educational qualifications, apart from m relaxation of upper age limit, whenever they apply for a higher post within the Corporation with reference to an open advertisement. Necessary provision to this effect has been made in the Recruitment Rules." 6.6. It is clear that the benefit of in-situ situ promotion cannot be denied only because the applicant's contract was extended from time to time. Once the applicant was regularised, she should have been given the benefit of in- situ promotion on a notional basis from the due date and on actual basis from the date she e assumed charge after regularization.
ation.
6.7. It is evident that the respondents, vide impugned order dated 24.11.2016, have not granted the 1st and 2nd in-situ promotions to the applicant and have only granted the 3rd and 4th in-situ promotions w.e.f. 31.12.2009 and 31.12.2014 respectively, in the grade pay of ₹4600 and 5400, which in fact correspond to the grade pay of the 1st ₹5400, 16 Item No. 73 (C-3) O.A. No.1581/2017 and 2nd in-situ in promotions. It is also a fact that the applicant was initially appointed in the pay scale o of ₹1640- 2900, which is the entry scale of Group IV employees. However, the respondents, through the impugned order dated 24.11.2016, have treated the applicant as a Group III employee, thereby effectively reverting the applicant from Group IV to Group III from the initial date of appointment, which is not permissible in the eyes of law. No notice whatsoever regarding such reversion from Group IV to Group III was ever issued to the applicant.
7. CONCLUSION :
7.1. In view of the foregoing analysis, the impugned order dated 15.2.2017 and the minutes of the meeting dated 24.11.2016 are hereby quashed and set aside to the extent that the applicant was treated as a Group III employee and denied the 1st and 2nd in situ situ promotions.
7.2. A review DPC shall be convened, and the applicant's case shall be considered afresh in light of the observations recorded above. Appropriate Appropriate orders for granting the 1st and 2nd in situ promotions shall be issued both on a notional 17 Item No. 73 (C-3) O.A. No.1581/2017 basis and on an actual basis from the date of the applicant's cant's regularization. Consequent pay re re-fixation orders shall also be passed.
7.3. Further, the the arrears arising from such revision shall be limited to three years prior to the date of rejection of her representation, i.e., 15.2.2017. The applicant shall be entitled to interest on such arrears at the GPF rates prevailing, until the date of actual payment.
7.4. The above exercise shall be completed within two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
7.5. The OA is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Pending M.A.s,, if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg) Member (A) Member (J) /as/