Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Kanwal Jit Singh vs N.D.M.C on 5 June, 2009
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
TA No. 164/2009
New Delhi, this the 5th day of June, 2009
HON,BLE MR.JUSTICE M.RAMACHANDRAN, VICE-CHAIRMAN(J)
HONBLE MR. SHAILENDRA PANDEY, MEMBER (A)
1. Kanwal Jit Singh,
S/o late Sd. Swaran Singh,
R/o WZ 221/S-53, Gali No.4,
Vishnu Garden, New Delhi-110018
2. Devinder Singh,
S/o Sh. Ujjagar Singh,
Flat No. 85,
Gandhi Sadan Mandir Marg,
New Delhi-110001. Petitioners.
(By Advocate Shri Naresh Kaushik)
Versus
1. N.D.M.C.
Through its Chairman,
Palika Kendra,
New Delhi-110001.
2. Director (Personnel)
NDMC,
Palika Kendra,
New Delhi-110001. Respondents.
(By Advocate Mrs. Jyoti Singh)
ORDER
Honble Mr. Justice M.Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (J):
The two applicants are employed in the New Delhi Municipal Council as Pump Drivers. They had joined service as Pump Drivers in 1973 and were among the 18 persons who got an upgradation in the year 1993 as Pump Driver Grade-I. It may not be necessary at this point to refer to further details, since the applicants have grievance about a later office order issued, where under the nomenclature of the post of Pump Driver also had been changed to Pump Attendant. There were to be only two categories of the said cadre, with pay scales of Rs.4000-6200 and Rs.4200-7100. The lower pay scale was prescribed for Pump Attendants in what is generally known as Delhi Vidyut Board Scale and the incumbents of higher scales were to be known as Pump Drivers again in Delhi Vidyut Board Scales (DVB).
2. The applicants felt that the above change was confusing, especially since Para 3 of the order dated 29.11.2001 also provided that the posts of Pump Drivers will be filled from the cadre of Pump Attendants only. According to them, when they were appointed as Pump Drivers and later on upgraded as Pump Drivers Grade I, to re-categorize them as Pump Attendants would have been inadmissible. However, it is not disputed that they have been put in the pay scale of Rs.4200-7100 in the category of Pump Drivers.
3. The complaint is that when competent authority had ordered to promote them, and they were in the higher scale, it would have been illogical for a lower authority to interfere with the nomenclature, and to alter the situation. Mr. Kaushik appearing on behalf of the applicants, states that the order does not have any clarity. It has been passed by incompetent authority and it has resulted in reversion and reduction in status and required to be set aside, as the exercise was carried out without notice.
4. Mrs. Jyoti Singh, appearing for respondents, however, had pointed out that the applicants were labouring under a delusion. They had coined up arguments in abstract, and it would not have been taken them anywhere.
5. The confusion is only by misgivings. The applicants had not been put to any prejudice whatsoever and it could not have been possible to agitate the issue. As could be gatherable from the submissions made on behalf of the respondents supported by the counter reply filed by them, it is seen that only the bare details have been supplied by the applicants. The change in the service conditions, in fact, necessitated consequential orders in the nature of Annexure-4. There was nothing more done to subject them to prejudice.
6. It is true that the applicants were two of the upgraded employees in the year 1993. There was proposal to pay them a higher pay scale, effective from their date of appointment but the decision had not been implemented. That was because of certain writ petitions pending in the High Court but it has become irrelevant now. This is because, in the meanwhile, the service of personnel was thoroughly recast because of what is known as extension of Shiv Shankar Scale (DVB pattern). New scales had been implemented and the DVB pattern also has been introduced. This could be gatherable from the materials produced before us. It is stated to be as a result of orders of the High Court.
7. Annexure-4 refers to the proceedings whereby grant of Time Bound Promotion Scheme had been introduced to the employees of the NDMC. Because of the introduction of the scale and the recommendations, Time Bound Promotions were to be extended to all the employees and officers of NDMC. It was well before the Pay Commission recommended for such benefits. Comprehensive in terms there was change in cadres. It is evident that options were called from the employees (See. Annexure 4).
8. We can very well presume that the applicants also might have exercised options to come within the fold of the new arrangements. In spite of the upgradation they had received, they were to receive Time Bound Promotional Scales. It is not disputed that such benefits had been extended to them. This ipso facto was likely to lead to the assumption that the benefit of the promotion that had been given over to them was set at naught, as every one of the employees whether or not they were beneficiaries of upgradation, had been extended the benefit of the Time Bound Promotion Scheme. In due course to reflect this change, the impugned orders have come to be passed on 29.11.2001.
9. As contended by Smt. Jyoti Singh, the applicants are estopped from contending that they would wish to retain such part of the order whereby they are to be treated as having been promoted and simultaneously claim that they are entitled to the upgradation benefits to which they have opted. As a matter of fact, the option exercised by them required that they were to be recognized as persons who had been similarly situated like their colleagues, who had not received any upgradations. This being the factual scenario, we do not think that the question need to be gone in minute details as it is well settled that service conditions are liable to be varied and cannot be static for all times to come. In the matter of their pay the applicants have not been subjected to inequity or prejudice. When they have opted to come over to DVB pattern, they could not have still claimed that they were to be recognized as Grade-I Pump Operators. Such a post was not there in the system.
10. The effect of the impugned order could not have been equated to a situation where there was a reversion. Evidently what was attempted to by the respondents was to streamline the cadres so as to avoid any confusion that may be there in future. In the process, the applicants had no personal loss, and as they had voluntarily opted for DVB pattern, the resultant situation was inevitable.
11. In the circumstances, we do not think there is justification or necessity for interference. TA stands dismissed. No costs.
(SHAILENDRA PANDEY) (M. RAMACHANDRAN)
MEMBER (A) VICE CHAIRMAN (J)
`SRD