Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Kanwar Chand vs Union Of India on 15 February, 2010
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi. OA 1389/2009 MA 947/2009 MA 984/2009 New Delhi this the 15th day of February, 2010 Honble Mr. N.D. Dayal, Member (A) 1. Shri Kanwar Chand S/o Late Shri Lal Singh R/o H1/203, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi-110085. 2. Shri Prem Chand S/o Late Shri Gurdas Ram R/o 11P/230, J-Block, Sagarpur West, New Delhi-110046. 3. Shri Rajpal Singh S/o Late Shri Sahaj Ram R/o T-572/A-6, Baljeet Nagar, New Delhi-110008. 4. Shri Pramod Kumar S/o Late Shri T.D.Gulati R/o H.No.181, Pocket-A-1, Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi-110085. 5. Shri Khem Chand Sharma S/o Shri Surat Singh R/o G-1/505, Dal Mill Road, Uttam Nagar, Delhi-110059. 6. Shri Chandra Bhan S/o Late Shri Har Swaroop R/o 35T Extension, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059. 7. Shri Advin V. Singh S/o Late Shri Victor Singh, R/o DA-102B, LIG, G-8 Area, Hari Nagar, New Delhi. (working as DTP Operators in various Offices under respondents) Applicants (By Advocate:Shri R.N.Singh) versus 1. Union of India, Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. (Through:Its Secretary) 2. Directorate of Printing, Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. (Through:Its Director) 3. The Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064. Respondents. By Advocate: Shri Duli Chand) ORDER (ORAL)
Right to file reply stood forfeited by order dated 26.11.2009 and therefore the reply that is found on record cannot be accepted. Registry shall enquire as to why the reply is on file despite Court direction and endorse the result thereof on the record-sheet.
2. There are seven applicants in this OA who are seeking benefit under ACP scheme. Five of them already stand retired but two of them are stated to be still in service. Learned counsel for the applicants by referring to the OA has submitted that the applicants, had joined the service as Compositor Grade-II in 1971 and were promoted as Compositor Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/- in 1984. Their next promotion was due to the post of Section Holder Foreman but due to modernization certain changes took place and no further promotion was given to the applicants. They were instead inducted as DTP Operator, which was a new work but they were not given regular appointment. They therefore approached the Tribunal in OA 1205/1997 which was decided on 05.01.1998 asking the respondents to take steps for giving regular appointment. Accordingly, the respondents had passed orders giving regular appointment to the applicants by their order dated 23.09.1998 in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000/-.
3. The applicants submit that the grounds taken by them before the respondents are as follows:
(i) They should have been treated as fresh appointees because having been declared surplus in their earlier cadre they have been newly appointed in a new post of DTP Operators on regular basis. As such, this appointment should not be held against the applicants.
(ii) Lino & Mono Operators had also come in a similar manner to the post of DTP Operators having become surplus earlier, and in their case along with appointment as DTP Operator benefit was given to count their past service and also ACP upgradations 1 & 2 were both given to them.
4. The applicants therefore submit that they cannot be discriminated vis-`-vis Lino & Mono Operators having been inducted to the same posts in terms of the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in Roshan Lal Tondon v. Union of India & Others AIR 1967 1989 and in General Manager, South Secunderabad and other vs. A.V.R.Siddhanti and others AIR 1974 SC 1755. It is further submitted that the judgment of the Tribunal affirmed by the Honble High Court of Delhi in CWP 8829/2008 is also relevant in this matter.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents upon instructions from the official representative, who is present in Court, states that the applicants had already received one promotion as Compositor Grade-I and consideration for grant of 2nd ACP has to take into account the date of such promotion, because ACP Scheme has laid down a certain timeframe for giving this benefit. It is, however, not disputed that the applicants were promoted as Compositor Grade-I in the year 1984. Learned counsel for the applicants states that as such the applicants would have completed 12 years by 1996 and therefore when the ACP Scheme was declared in 1999 they were eligible. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the DoP&T has been objecting to such claim of the applicants stating that there are certain different circumstances which were applicable in the case of Lino & Mono Operators which are not applicable to the applicants herein. However, it has not been possible for the respondents to clarify as to what exactly are those reasons because of which applicants must be treated differently and therefore should not be extended the same benefits of ACP Scheme. I find that pay scales which have been represented for and which are mentioned from time to time in the pleadings vary and so it is not clear exactly which pay scale will be relevant to the prayer of applicants. This matter is, therefore, disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the prayer of the applicants and extend to them the benefit of 2nd financial upgradation under ACP scheme in pay scale to which they would be entitled within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.
(N.D.Dayal) Member (A) /kdr/