Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Samir Chharchholia vs Govt. Of Nctd on 28 May, 2025
1
O.A. No. 118/2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 118/2018
Reserved on: 09.05.2025
Pronounced on:28.05.2025
HON'BLE MR. SANJEEVA KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
HON'BLE SHRI AJAY PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER (J)
1. Samir Chharchholia, Statistical Assistant
aged about 43 years S/o Mr. Umesh Chand Chharchholia,
Date of initial appointment as Statistical Investigator:
19.01.2004, Posted/working at: Tourism Department,
Govt. of N.C.T. Delhi, 2nd Floor, C-Wing,
Vikas Bhawan-II, Civil Lines, Delhi - 110 054.
Resident of A-74, Shastri Nagar, Near Jalebi Chowk,
Delhi - 110 052.
2. Sudhir Kumar, Statistical Assistant,
aged about 40 years S/o late Mr. Randhir Singh,
Date of initial appointment as Statistical Investigator:
08.01.2004, Posted/working at: Maharishi Valmiki Hospital,
Govt. of N.C.T. Delhi, Pooth Khurd, Delhi.
Resident of H.No.38, Sector-9, Bahadurgarh, Haryana.
3. Rajesh Ranjan, Statistical Assistant,
aged about 42 years S/o Mr. Hari Narayan Singh,
Date of initial appointment as Statistical Investigator:
31.10.2003, Posted/working at: Department of Trade & Taxes,
Govt. of N.C.T. Delhi, Vyapar Bhawan, I.T.O.,
New Delhi - 110 002.
Resident of House No.7/9, Near Goshala C/o Surender Singh
Deswal, Village Kishangarh, Delhi - 110 070.
4. Shashi Bhanu Gupta, Statistical Assistant,
aged about 42 years S/o Mr. Radha Mohan Gupta,
Date of initial appointment as Statistical Investigator:
10.03.2004, Posted/working at: Department of Trade & Taxes,
Govt. of N.C.T. Delhi, Vyapar Bhawan, I.T.O.
New Delhi - 110 002.
Resident of Flat No.615, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Apartment,
Pocket 03, Phase-II, Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi.
5. Manoj Kumar, Statistical Assistant,
aged about 39 years S/o Mr. Gaje Singh,
Date of initial appointment as Statistical Investigator:
17.11.2003, Posted/working at: RTRM Hospital,
Govt. of N.C.T. Delhi, Jaffarpur, Delhi.
Resident of V&PO Badli, Distt. Jhajjhar, Haryana.
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.05.29
AHUJA 15:33:41+05'30'
2
O.A. No. 118/2018
6. Manoj Kumar Raghav, Statistical Assistant,
aged about 38 years, s/o Mr. Ompal Singh,
Date of initial appointment as Statistical Investigator:
22.03.2004, Posted/working at: Department of Trade & Taxes,
Govt. of N.C.T. Delhi, Vyapar Bhawan, I.T.O.,
New Delhi - 110 002.
Resident of Plot No.MM-7, Flat No.GF-3, DLF Ankur Vihar,
Loni, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.
7. Benit Kumar, Statistical Assistant
aged about 41 years, s/o Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh,
Date of initial appointment as Statistical Investigator:
21.05.2004, Posted/working at: Department of Trade & Taxes,
Govt. of NCT Delhi, Vyapar Bhawan, I.T.O., New Delhi-11002.
Resident of C-9/B, Gali No.5, Majlis Park, Adarsh Nagar,
Delhi.
8. Mahesh Kumar, Statistical Assistant,
aged about 53 years, s/o Mr. Kanwar Singh,
Date of initial appointment as Statistical Investigator:
24.02.2005, Posted/working at: Department of Trade & Taxes,
Govt. of NCT Delhi, Vyapar Bhawan, I.T.O., New Delhi-11002.
Resident of 308, Plot No.18, Sector-4, Vaishali, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh.
9. Naveen Prakash Dubey, Statistical Assistant,
aged about 40 years, s/o Mr. Om Prakash Dubey,
Date of initial appointment as Statistical Investigator:
21.09.2005, Posted/working at: Directorate of Education,
Govt. of NCT Delhi, Old Secretariat, Delhi - 110 054.
Resident of Flat No.1876, Delhi Administration Flats, Gulabi
Bagh, Delhi - 110 007.
10. Balbir Jha, Statistical Assistant,
Aged about 39 years, S/o Mr. B.N. Jha,
Date of initial appointment as Statistical Investigator:
28.07.2005, Posted/working at: RTRM Hospital,
Govt. of N.C.T. Delhi, Jaffarpur, Delhi.
Resident of 31-B, RG Block, Street No.6, Sangam Vihar,
Najafgarh, Delhi.
11. Sunil Kumar, Statistical Assistant,
aged about 38 years, s/o Mr. Pushpendra Singh,
Date of initial appointment as Statistical Investigator:
21.10.2005, Posted/working at: Directorate of Health
Services, Govt. of NCT Delhi, Karkardooma, Delhi.
Resident of V&PO Sultanpur Hatana, Distt. Baghpat, Uttar
Pradesh.
12. Ashok Kumar, Statistical Assistant,
aged about 40 years, s/o Mr. Meva Ram,
Date of initial appointment as Statistical Investigator:
29.11.2005, Posted/working at: DDU Hospital, Govt. of NCT
Delhi, Hari Nagar, Delhi.
Resident of Village Pandwala Khurd, PO Najafgarh, New Delhi.
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.05.29
AHUJA 15:33:41+05'30'
3
O.A. No. 118/2018
13. Naveen Kadyan, Statistical Assistant,
aged about 40 years, s/o Mr. Dayanand,
Date of initial appointment as Statistical Investigator:
08.08.2005, Posted/working at: Sanjay Gandhi Memorial
Hospital, Govt. of NCT Delhi, Mangolpuri, New Delhi.
Resident of Flat No.85, Navyug Apartment, Sector-9, Rohini,
New Delhi - 110 085.
14. Deepesh Kumar Yadav, Statistical Assistant,
aged about 37 years, s/o Mr. K.P. Singh Yadav,
Date of initial appointment as Statistical Investigator:
27.07.2005, Posted/working at: Food Supply & Consumer
Affairs Department, Govt. of NCT Delhi, Vikas Bhawan, I.T.O.,
New Delhi - 110 002.
Resident of 1529, Type-II, Delhi Administration Flats,
Gulabi Bagh, Delhi - 110 007.
15. Raj Kumar, Statistical Assistant,
aged about 39 years, s/o Mr. Padam Singh,
Date of initial appointment as Statistical Investigator:
07.10.2005, Posted/working at: Finance (Budget)
Department, Govt. of NCT Delhi, 4th level, Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi- 110 002.
Resident of: 33E, DA Block, Hari Nagar Clock Tower,
Delhi.
...Applicants
-Versus-
1. Govt. of N.C.T. Delhi
[through/service to be effected upon:
Its Chief Secretary, at 5th level,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi - 110 002.
2. Planning Department,
[through/service to be effected upon:
Its Principal Secretary, at Planning Department,
Government of NCT Delhi, 6th level, B-Wing,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi - 110 002.
...Respondents
For Applicant: Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate.
For Respondents: Mr. H.A. Khan, Advocate
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.05.29
AHUJA 15:33:41+05'30'
4
O.A. No. 118/2018
ORDER
AS PER AJAY PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER JUDICIAL:
Applicants are Statistical Assistant, Group-B (Non Gazetted) of Planning & Statistical Cadre, Government of N.C.T. Delhi, working in various departments under GNCTD, by means of this Application have invoked jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking following reiefs [as extracted from the O.A. ] reads as under:-
"a. Quashing and Setting aside of 'PD' communication dated 08.09.2017 and thereby circulated/issued final seniority list of Statistical Assistant, Group-B (Non-Gazetted) of 'PSC' [Annexure A-1] with all consequential reliefs and benefits;
b. Directing respondents to reframe seniority list of 'SA', by with effect from 01.12.2006 i.e. the date of 'PSC' restructure, as 'SA' allotting/fixing seniority of the Applicants as obtaining from the seniority list of 'SI', with all consequential reliefs and benefits;
c. Costs of this application may also be granted to the applicants; and d. Any other or further order or direction to grant complete relief to the applicants."
FACTS IN BRIEF
2. Briefly stated facts as adumbrated by the applicants in nutshell are that applicants were selected by DSSSB in terms of advertisement no.1/2002 in the post of Statistical Investigator [in short SI] and joined GNCTD in Planning and Statistical Cadre [in short PSC]. Applicants' initial date of appointment as S.I. are 19.01.2004, 08.01.2004, 31.10.2003, 10.03.2004, 17.11.2003, 22.03.2004, 21.05.2004, 24.02.2005, 21.09.2005, 28.07.2005, 21.10.2005, 29.11.2005, 08.08.2005, 27.07.2005 and 07.10.2005 respectively. The Recruitment Rules dated 21.03.1995 for the post of Statistical Assistant/Inspector & Statistical Investigator stipulate channel of promotion - 75% from S.I. in pay scale Rs.1200-2040 (revised Rs.4000-6000) under GNCTD with five years regular service in the grade to SA in scale of pay Rs.1400-2300 (revised scale Rs.5000-8000).
3. It is the case of the applicants that the respondents initiated process NARESH NARESH of restructuring of PSC on 01.12.2006 and applicants KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.05.29 AHUJA 15:33:41+05'30' 5 O.A. No. 118/2018 received copies of noting sheets. The Service Department, GNCTD under "Allocation of Business Rules, 1993" notified vide notification dated 01.12.1993 duty to advise other departments in service matters. The service department tendered advice that as per norms of DOPT for placement of S.I. in grade of S.A., with minimum regular qualifying service stands at three years and instructed PD to ensure that the incumbent "SI" should fulfill the said requisite minimum qualifying service in their existing grade i.e. S.I. to become eligible for their placement as S.A. The Planning Department [in short PD] also confirmed that period of residency in restructured cadre conforms to the norms prescribed by DOPT, GOI. As per revised provisions the applicants were to get promoted to the post of S.A. upon their completing 3 (three) years of regular service as S.I.
4. Applicants have further stated in the O.A. that vide Order dated 01.12.2006, purported cadre restructuring of PSC was ordered, whereby (1) reduction of grade hierarchy from eight to six obliterating nomenclature i.e. (i) Research Officer and (ii) Statistical Investigator from PSC; (2) Change of first entry post in PSC from SI to SA; (3) Abolition of all 263 sanctioned posts of S.I. (including posts held by the applicants and in lieu thereof creation of 221 posts of S.A. to add up in 221 existing and 19 newly created posts of S.A. totaling to 452 posts of S.A. in March, 2004; (4) Seniority of S.I. and S.A. after abolition of posts of 'SI' to stand in the then present order of seniority first of "SA" followed by "SI".
5. Applicants also averred that contrary to residency period prescribed under rules indicated by Service Deptt., GNCTD and three years provision for promotion to become SI to SA, but illegally residency period in scale of pay Rs.4000-6000 in S.I. as regular service arbitrarily prescribed for sanctioned post of S.A. in scale of pay Rs.5000-8000. The applicants are performing duties and responsibilities attached to the post of S.A. and in the name of cadre restructuring in spite of order of Lieutenant Governor, Delhi/ Competent Authority, applicants are entitled w.e.f. 01.12.2006 to get seniority as S.A.
6. The Order dated 01.12.2006 (Annexure A-3) has been issued to restructure NARESH NARESH the planning and statistical cadre. After 01.12.2006, KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.05.29 AHUJA 15:33:41+05'30' 6 O.A. No. 118/2018 posts in PSC are SA, SO, Assistant Director, Deputy Director, Joint Director and Director and post of S.I. stands abolished. There is no separate seniority list of SA since 01.12.2006 for newly appointed S.A.
7. Vide Order dated 01.12.2006, there is no feeder post of S.I. and post of S.I. stands abolished. The post of S.A. already belongs to entry level post in PSC and now ordering for promotion after 7 (seven) years in regular service is illegal and does not arise and the impugned final seniority list of S.A. dated 0809.2017 is illegal, ought to be assigned seniority from the date 01.12.2006 of their cadre restructuring i.e. 01.12.2006 and not after completing 7 (seven) years of regular service as S.I. for induction to S.A. and same is contrary to principles of natural justice. The applicants are eligible against sanctioned post of S.A. as on 01.12.1996 otherwise also as per RR - residency period of 5 (five) years could have become S.A. The applicants accordingly not placed at appropriate place in impugned seniority list dated 08.09.2017 and placing after 7 (seven) years in S.A. is bad in law.
8. Applicants were promoted on regular basis to the post of S.A. vide Order dated 26.05.2011 and dated 09.01.2013 (Annexure A-4) after completing 7 (seven) years of regular service from S.I. to S.A. w.e.f. 19.01.2011, 08.01,2011, 31.10.2010, 10.03.2011, 17.11.2010, 22.03.2011, 21.05.2011, 24.02.2012, 21.09.2012, 28.07.2012, 21.10.2012, 29.11.2012, 08.08.2012, 27.07.2012 and 07.10.2012 respectively.
9. Respondents have issued final seniority list dated 04.02.2014 (Annexure A-5) of S.A. and from 432 to 639 names of seniors of applicants and upon completing their 7 (seven) years of service, whereas the names of seniors ought to be shown as on 01.12.2006, date of PSC restructuring as the date of their regular appointment to the grade of S.A. The seniors did not get it rectified i.e. seniority list of S.A. dated 04.02.2014.
10. The applicants submitted representation dated Nov/Dec, 2015 (Annexure A-6) stating that vide Order dated 01.12.2006, cadre restructuring of Statistical Cadre under PD was ordered and NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.05.29 AHUJA 15:33:41+05'30' 7 O.A. No. 118/2018 263 posts of S.I. including posts of applicants were abolished and in lieu thereof 221 new posts of S.A. created. So also in addition 212 + 19 remaining posts of S.A., total to 452 of S.A. in March, 2004 were created. Since vide Order dated 01.12.2006 for restricting of cadre and now seniority of first S.A. be placed followed by S.I. Due to effect of order dated 01.12.2006 w.e.f. 01.12.2006, all applicants (i.e. S.I) became S.A. for purpose of seniority with consequential benefits and deserve to be placed at appropriate place in seniority list of S.A. i.e. in the earlier existing seniority list of S.A. and in order dated 01.12.2006, arbitrary condition of 7 (seven) years of regular service in S.I. to become S.A. has been laid down without giving opportunity of hearing. So also as per RR (Annexure A-2) applicants upon completion of 5 (five) years of service as S.I. and now vide Order dated 01.12.2006, service condition of 7 (seven) years in S.I. detriment of conditions of service, laid for promotion to S.A. So also no such condition laid to Research Officers became Statistical Officers for all purposes including salary of post of Statistical Officer. So also contrary to Order dated 01.12.2006 for restructuring respondents issued promotion Order dated 26.05.2011 and 09.01.2013 on completion of 7 (seven) years of regular service, including around 4 (four) years on the post of S.A. whereas after 01.12.2006, there is no feeder post of S.I. to S.A and the post of S.A. is now entry level post w.e.f. 01.12.2006. The seniority list vide Order dated 04.02.2014, final seniority list from serial no.432 to 639, S.A. covers S.A. appointed till 08.05.2007 as S.A., whereas applicants in terms of cadre-restructuring order dated 01.12.2006, appointed as S.A. w.e.f. 01.12.2006 but not appearing at appropriate place in the seniority list dated 04.02.2014 for S.A. Applicants in the representation sought relief to include their names w.e.f. 01.12.2006 at appropriate place in the seniority list of S.A. and issue corrigendum in Office Order No.28/2011 dated 26.05.2011 and 09.01.2013 (Annexure A-4) promotion of applicants and delete illegal phrase "promoted to the post of S.A. and allow applicants pay as applicable w.e.f. 01.12.2006 as per order of restructuring dated 01.12.2006.
11. The draft seniority list dated 22.01.2016 of S.A. was issued andNARESH NARESH objections were filed by the applicants vide representation to KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.05.29 AHUJA 15:33:41+05'30' 8 O.A. No. 118/2018 include their names in terms of PSC Cadre structure, w.e.f. 01.12.2006 to place them at appropriate level and applicants' position in seniority list was showing in S.A. grade after completing 7 (seven) years of regular service including service spent as S.A.. Applicants submitted reminder to include their names in draft seniority list dated 22.01.2016, at correct level w.e.f. 01.12.2006 as S.A. and not after 7 (seven) years in S.I.
12. The impugned O.M., final seniority list dated 08.09.2017 (Annexure A-1) of S.A., Group-B |(Non-Gazetted) in Level-6 in pay matrix Rs.9300-34,800 with GP Rs.4200/-. The applicants claim for placement as S.A. as per cadre restructuring w.e.f. 01.12.2006 had been ignored and considered based on date of entry in S.A. grade and date of entry in S.A. grade vide order dated 26.05.2011 and 09.01.2013 (Annexure A-4) promotion after 7 (seven) years as S.I. and S.A. is bad in law, whereas applicants came to know under RTI that Service Department, GNCTD under Allocation of Business Rules, 1993 vide notification dated 01.12.1993 is to advice in service matters and clearly advised as per DOPT norms for placement of S.I. in the grade of S.A. with minimum regular qualifying service stands at 3 (three) years with minimum requisite qualification.
13. The applicants even, if no PSC restructuring as per revised provisions dated 01.12.2016, were to get promotion to the post of S.A., upon their completing 3 (three) years of regular service as S.I. and applicants as per RR are eligible to draw pay and allowances of S.A. immediately upon completion of 3 (three) years as residency period in the grade of S.I. Hence, the residency period as S.I. would not be 7 (seven) years for placement of applicants as S.A. and to draw payand allowances of the post of S.A. The Lieutenant Governor, Delhi/Competent Authority already granted approval of 3 (three) years residency period in note-sheet as S.I. for S.A. grade. The applicants are entitled to get promotion as .S.A. after completing 3 (three) years of regular service as S.I. as per order sheet at page 198 and 206, part of minutes of review of PSC Committee meeting (Annexure A-8 - page 160 to 212). Hence, the OA to set aside final seniority list dated 08.09.2017 of S.A. and NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.05.29 AHUJA 15:33:41+05'30' 9 O.A. No. 118/2018 redraw impugned seniority list of S.A. w.e.f. 01.12.2006 as per date of PSC restructuring as S.A., fixing seniority of applicants as from seniority list of S.I. with all consequential benefits.
14. Per contra, respondents have contested the claim of the applicants by filing counter reply affidavit and raised preliminary objections as non-impleadment of necessary parties as applicants are seeking to re-draw seniority w.e.f. 01.12.2006 which will affect the seniority of others in their cadre and such affected persons have not been impleaded in this OA.
15. Respondents have further stated in the Written Statement that applicants were appointed between years 2003 to 2005 on different dates in capacity of S.I. in pre-revised scale of Rs.4000- 6000, joined PSC cadre of GNCTD. The PSC of GNCTD on recommendation of Standing Committee on administrative reforms, Govt. of Delhi to review PSC, constituted a Committee for the same. The PSC was restructured vide Order dated 01.12.2006, with the approval of Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor, Delhi (1) First entry in PSC will be S.A. with P.G. qualification in pay scale Rs.5000-8000 through direct recruitment; (2) Eight grades hierarchy brought down to six grades and abolished category of S.I. & Research Officer; (3)After abolition of post of S.I., will stand in present seniority of S.I. & S.A.; (4) S.I. who have not completed 7 (seven) years of regular service in the grade will continue to draw their pay in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 till they complete 7 (seven) years of regular service against sanctioned posts of S.A. and on completion of 7 (seven) years of service, they will draw their salary in pay scale of Rs.5000- 8000 as S.A.
16. Respondents have also stated in the Written Statement that all the applicants have not completed 7 (seven) years as on 01.12.2006 and promoted after 7 (seven) years w.e.f. between 2010 and 2012 and rightly placed in impugned seniority list dated 08.09.2017. The vacancies were not available after order of restructuring dated 01.12.2006 and after 7 (seven) years were promoted. The applicants not completed regular service as S.I. for promotion on the date of restructuring of PSC i.e. 01.12.2006. The PSCNARESH NARESH was restructured vide order dated 01.12.2006 with approval of KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.05.29 AHUJA 15:33:41+05'30' 10 O.A. No. 118/2018 L.G., Delhi. The DPC for promotion of S.I. to S.A. in its meeting held on 18.05.2011 and 04.01.2013 assessed eligibility and suitability of S.I. for promotion to S.A. and promotion orders were issued vide orders dated 26.05.2011 and 09.01.2013 and applicants not entitled for the seniority as they had not completed 7 (seven) years of regular service in the grade of S.I. w.e.f. 01.12.2006 and impugned seniority is in order.
17. Respondents have placed reliance on law laid down in case of State of Uttranchal & Anr. Vs. Madan Mohan Joshi, (2008) 6 SCC 797 wherein it is held that in respect of rights of parties, require determination in the presence of such affected parties. So also in case of Vijay Kumar Kaul Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2012) 7 SCC 610, it has been observed that for a litigation for claiming seniority, it is obligatory to come out at earliest or within a reasonable span of time and belated approach in impermissible as in the meantime interest of third parties gets ripened.
18. Rejoinder has been filed by the applicants to counter reply of respondents denying adverse averments in toto and relied in case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Commissioner, KSRTC Vs. Mahadev Shetty, (2003) 7 SCC 197 that scope and authority of a precedent should never be expanded unnecessarily beyond the needs of a situation. The applicants have reiterated the contentions as stated in the OA.
SUBMISSIONS
19. Shri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants criticizing the impugned final seniority list dated 08.09.2017, contended and can be summarized as under -
(i) The applicants were appointed as S.I. in revised pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 as per 5th CPC and as per recruitment rules on completing five years of regular service entitled for consideration for promotion to post of S.A. in revised pay scale Rs.5000-8000 in 5th CPC. The respondents on 01.12.2006, ordered PSC restructuring with abolition of post of S.I., and 263 posts of S.I. abolished and created 221 posts of S.A. in addition 19 posts of S.A., newly created.
In March,
NARESH NARESH 2004, there were total 452 posts of S.A.
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.05.29
AHUJA 15:33:41+05'30'
11
O.A. No. 118/2018
(ii) The post of S.I. stands abolished vide order dated 01.12.2006
for PSC restructuring and post of S.A. created resultantly applicants stand in the cadre of S.A with scale of pay Rs.5000-8000, revised as per 5th CPC and impugned seniority list dated 08.09.2017 (Annexure A-1) is illegal. The applicants placed after 7 (seven) years of regular service in S.I. inclusive of S.A. and promoted as S.A. vide orders dated 18.05.2011 and 04.01.2013 is bad in law. Thus, applicants be placed in en bloc after S.A. as on 01.12.2006 for all benefits including scale of pay as S.A. and seniority of S.A. as on 01.12.2006 as there is no post of S.I. after 01.12.2006. So also entitled for placing at appropriate level in seniority list dated 04.02.2014 as applicants are working as S.A. w.e.f. 01.12.2006.
(iii) Provisional seniority list dated 22.01.2016 of S.A. was issued seeking objections. The applicants name did not appear as per PSC cadre restructuring Order dated 01.12.2006 and ought to be shown as S.A. e.e.f. 01.12.2006 and assigned seniority as regular appointment in S.A. cadre after completing 7 (seven) years of regular service in SI and SA. The representation of the applicants not considered and issued faulty impugned seniority list dated 08.09.2017.
(iv) During process of PSC cadre restructuring the PD proposed 7 (seven) years of qualifying service for S.I. to become eligible for drawl of pay in the pay scale of S.A. but subsequently referred to Service Department, GNCTD and under Allocation of Business Rules, 1993
- Advice of the Service Department as per DOPT OM, minimum 3 (three) years regular service as S.I., as qualifying service for placement as S.A. and no PSC restructuring as per revised 3 (three) years and subject to availability of vacancies. There is no approval of L.G., Delhi for 7 (seven) years residency period from S.I. to S.A. a deviation from 3 (three) years to 7 (seven) years vide PSC restructuring Order dated 01.12.2006 is illegal and non est. The applicants are entitled to be placed as S.I. just after 3 (three) years regular service of S.I. in S.A. cadre with all benefits and accordingly impugned seniority list be modified/re-drawn. The DPC held to promote from S.I. to S.A. after 01.12.2006 is bad in law, contrary to L.G. approval of restructuring PSC.
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.05.29
AHUJA 15:33:41+05'30'
12
O.A. No. 118/2018
(v) The recruitment rules from S.I. to S.A. residency period 5
(five) years taken away by PSC restructuring order dated 01.12.2006 to 7 (seven) years and violated vested right of applicants. The applicants are entitled for induction to S.A. cadre on completion of 3 (three) years as S.I. as per advise of Service Department, GNCTD and promoted and be placed en bloc to the post of S.A. with all benefits.
20. Shri H.A. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supporting the impugned final seniority list dated 08.09.2017 for SA and argued and can be summarized as -
(i) The administrative decision was taken by cadre controlling authority - Planning Department [in short PD] and Statistical Investigators with 7 (seven) years of regular service as on 01.12.2006 were to be placed in S.A. cadre and those who have not completed 7 (seven) years as S.I. i.e. applicants were required to draw scale of pay in grade of S.I. against sanctioned post of S.A. till they completed 7 (seven) years as S.I. The applicants completed 7 (seven) years as S.I. by that time fresh batch of S.A. inducted and impugned final seniority list was issued as fresh S.A. inducted prior to applicants, assigned seniority over and above applicants as per rules. The order dated 01.12.2006 for PSC restructuring was approved by L.G., Delhi. The seven years of tenure for S.I. to S.A. was due to stagnation in S.I. cadre and with reasonable object.
(ii) So far as advise of Service Department dated 16.07.2021 was given in context of grant of ACP/MACP to adopt a procedure to implement order dated 01.12.2006. The documents dated 01.12.2006 and dated 16.07.2021 are of different dates for different purposes.
(iii) PSC Restructuring Order dated 01.12.2006 has been issued after due approval of L.G., Delhi and notings in file are merely a noting simplicitor and expression of opinion and cannot be treated as the decision of the Government.
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.05.29
AHUJA 15:33:41+05'30'
13
O.A. No. 118/2018
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
21. We have bestowed our anxious considerations on the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the applicants and respondents and also perused the material placed on record as well.
THE ISSUE
22. The precise question which arises for our consideration -
"Whether the impugned seniority list dated 08.09.2017 of Statistical Assistant, Group B (Non-Gazetted) of PSC is in accordance with statutory PSC restructuring order dated 01.12.2006 issued to regulate the seniority?"
23. The admitted facts in the case on hand are that the applicants were appointed as SI on 19.01.2004, 08.01.2004, 31.10.2003, 10.03.2004, 17.11.2003, 22.03.2004, 21.05.2004, 24.02.2005, 21.09.2005, 28.07.2005, 21.10.2005, 29.11.2005, 08.08.2005, 27.07.2005 and 07.10.2005 respectively and completed 7 years as S.I. and as per PSC restructuring Order dated 01.12.2006 (Annexure A-3) pursuant to decision in cadre review, in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India read with GOI, Ministry of Home Affairs Notification dated 13.07.1959. The L.G. of Delhi restructured the PSC of GNCTD, as per Clause 3.8, the S.I. who have not yet completed seven years of regular service in the grade will continue to draw their pay in pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 till they complete 07 years of regular service, against sanctioned posts of S.A. On completion of 07 years of service, they will draw their salary in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 as S.A. So also as per Clause 3.19 of PSC restructure order dated 01.12.2006, amended recruitment rules for respective posts will be amended and the orders will come into force with immediate effect.
24. Admittedly, the applicants no.1 to 7 completed 07 years regular service as S.I. in pursuant of criteria envisaged in restructuring of PSC cadre vide order dated 01.12.2006 and promoted as S.A. w.e.f. 19.01.2011, 08.01.2011, 31.10.2010, 10.03.2011, 17.11.2010, 22.03.2011 and 21.05.2011 respectively andNARESH NARESH promoted vide order dated 26.05.2011 (Annexure A-4) and KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.05.29 AHUJA 15:33:41+05'30' 14 O.A. No. 118/2018 Applicants no. 8 to 15 promoted vide order dated 09.01.2013 (Annexure A-4) as S.A. w.e.f. 24.02.2012, 21.09.2012, 28.07.2012, 29.11.2012, 08.08.2012, 27.07.2012 and 07.10.2012 respectively.
25. Undisputedly, applicants have not challenged clause (3.7) (3.8) & (3.19) of PSC restructuring order dated 01.12.2006 (Annexure A-3), criteria, statutory rule for regulating seniority of applicants after 01.12.2006. So also not challenged promotion orders dated 26.05.2011 and 09.01.2013 of applicants as S.A. and seniority list dated 04.02.2014 also not called in question.
26. The dispute in the case in our hand is that applicants are seeking relief to set aside impugned seniority for S.A. list dated 08.09.2017 and 04.02.2014 and re-cast after 05 years as S.I. as per RR dated 21.03.1995. So also to re-cast after 03 years as S.I. as per advise given by Service Department, GNCTD and place all applicants after 05 years or 03 years residency period as S.I. to S.A. as per PSC restructuring order dated 01.12.2006 and not as per Clause (3.8) of PSC restructuring order dated 01.12.2006 envisaged minimum 07 years residency period as S.I. for S.A. The applicants promoted as SA after 07 years residency period in S.I. and placed in S.A. cadre vide promotion Order dated 26.05.2011 and 09.01.2013 and accordingly placed in impugned seniority lists dated 08.09.2017 and said promotion orders have not been challenged and so also seniority list dated 04.02.2014 not under challenge.
RULE OF LAW
27. To appreciate the issue arising in the present OA, as applicants are seeking quashment of seniority list dated 08.09.2017 for S.A. and to re-cast w.e.f. 01.12.2006, in accordance with PSC restructuring Order dated 01.12.2006 placing applicants just below S.A. with all consequential benefits including pay scale of Rs.5000- 8000 in S.A. w.e.f. 01.12.2006.
28. It will be necessary to notice the relevant provisions to appreciate the issue in the present OA.
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.05.29
AHUJA 15:33:41+05'30'
15
O.A. No. 118/2018
NOTIFICATION
29. In exercise of the powers conferred by the provision to Article 309 of the Constitution of India read with G.O.I., Ministry of Home Affairs Notification No.F-24/78/68-DH(S) dated 24.09.1968, the Lt. Governor of GNCTD amended recruitment rules for appointment to the post of Statistical Assistant/Inspector in various offices/ departments under the GNCTD, relevant extract reads as under -
Col.No. Revised provisions of
Recruitment Rules.
11 (Now 12) PROMOTION
In case of Statistical Investigator/computer
Recruitment by Progress Assistant in the pay
promotion/ scale of Rs.1200-2040 - under
Transfer/ the Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi with 5
Deputation.... years regular service in the grade.
By order and in the name of the
Lt. Governor of the National
Capital Territory of Delhi.
[Emphasis supplied]
30. In service jurisprudence, F.R. 9(4) defines the word "cadre" to mean the strength of a service or part of a service sanctioned a separate unit. The Government has full power to re-organize/review the cadres and creation and abolition of posts is a matter of Government policy in necessity of internal administration and principles of natural justice not attracted.
PSC RESTRUCTURE ORDER DATED 01.12.2006
31. In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India read with G.O.I., Ministry of Home Affairs Notification No. F.27/59 HIM (1) dated 13.07.1959 and other powers in this behalf, the Hon'ble Lt. Governor of Delhi restructured the PSC cadre of GNCTD. For ready reference, entire order dated 01.12.2006 reads as -
"No.F.9(12)/2003/CC/Plg.
Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi Planning Department, Delhi Secretariat IP Estate New Delhi - 110 002.
Dated the 01/12/2006
ORDER
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.05.29
AHUJA 15:33:41+05'30'
16
O.A. No. 118/2018
1. The Standing Committee on Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Delhi decided to review the Planning and Statistical Cadre of Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi. In pursuance of the said decision a Cadre Review Committee was constituted under the chairmanship of Pr. Secretary (Planning) vide order dated 7th February 2003. The other members of the Committee were Secretary (AR), Joint Secretary (Services), Director (DES) and Dy. Director (AR). The report of the Committee so constituted was further examined in consultation with the Administrative Reforms Department.
2. It has been decided to restructure the Planning and Statistical Cadre on the following pattern:-
i. For entry level post instead of present qualification of Graduate with Economics and Statistics the educational qualification should be Post Graduate in Economics or Statistics since higher level of knowledge has become necessary to understand and analyse complex issues.
ii. In order to reduce the existing eight-grades hierarchy, it has to be brought down to six grades.
iii. The present stagnation in the Cadre may be ameliorated, so that motivation level is improved.
iv. To induct fresh talent, optimum ratio of direct recruitment in the appropriate middle grades may also be made.
3. In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India read with Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs Notification No. F.27/59-Him (1) dated the 13" July 1959 and other powers enabling him in this behalf, the Hon'ble Lt. Governor of Delhi is pleased to restructure the Planning and Statistical Cadre of Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi as follows:-
3.1. The first entry post now in the Planning and Statistical cadre will be Statistical Assistant with Post Graduate qualification in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 which will be filled through direct recruitment.
3.2. The educational qualification for the first entry post in the Planning and Statistical Cadre will be Post Graduate degree with Statistics/Economics/Operation Research OR Maths/Commerce with Statistics as a subject. The Recruitment Rule for the post of Statistical Assistant will stand modified to this extent. 3.3 The 263 sanctioned posts of Statistical Investigator with Graduate qualification and pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 will stand abolished and 221 posts of Statistical Assistant Rs. 5000-8000 are created in lieu of these. 3.4. Eight posts out of 220 sanctioned posts of Statistical Assistant will stand abolished. The remaining 212 posts of Statistical Assistant will add up with 221 post of Statistical Assistant created in lieu of 263 posts of Statistical Investigator abolished. This will make 433 posts of Statistical Assistant as in March 2004.
3.5 Eight new posts of Statistical Investigator created after March 2004 will stand abolished and eight posts of Statistical Assistant will be created. These will be added to 433 posts of Statistical Assistant as given in Para No 3.4 above. Eleven new posts of Statistical Assistant created after March, 2004 will also add up to the 433 posts of Statistical Assistant.
NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.05.29 AHUJA 15:33:41+05'30' 17 O.A. No. 118/2018 3.6 These 19 posts of Statistical Assistant will be added to 433 posts of Statistical Assistant as given in Para No. 3.4 making a total number of 452 posts as on date. Annexure-I. 3.7 The seniority of Statistical Investigator and Statistical Assistant after abolition of post of Statistical Investigator will stand in the present order of seniority first of Statistical Assistant followed by Statistical Investigators. 3.8 The Statistical Investigator who have not yet completed seven years of regular service in the grade will continue to draw their pay in the pay Scale of Rs.4000-6000 till they complete 07 years of regular service, against the sanctioned posts of Statistical Assistant. On completion of seven years of service they will draw their salary in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 as Statistical Assistant.
3.9 All the eighty one sanctioned posts of Research Officers in the pay Scale of Rs 5500-9000 sanctioned in different departments will stand abolished and 76 posts of Statistical Officer in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 will stand created in lieu of these. 3.10 Seventeen new posts created will be added to 32 existing posts of Statistical Officers. Thus, there will be total No. of 125 posts of Statistical officer in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500. 3.11 .Ten new posts of Statistical Officer/Research Officer created after March, 2004 in addition to those created as per Para No. 3.9 and 3.10 will be added as new posts of Statistical Officer to 125 posts of Statistical Officer in the new structure. There will be total number of 135 posts of Statistical Officer as on date [Annexure - II]. 3.12 The seniority of the Statistical Officers and Research Officers will be maintained in the existing order of seniority of Statistical Officers followed by Research Officers.
3.13 The mode of recruitment to the post of Statistical Officer will be i) 75% by promotion of Statistical Assistant having completed 06 years of regular service and ii) 25% by direct recruitment through UPSC.
3.14 New posts of Assistant Director [Plg./Statistics] will be created in some departments along with abolition of some posts of Assistant Director in some of the Departments. After abolition of one post of Assistant Director the total number of sanctioned posts of Assistant Director will be Thirty One [Annexure- III]. 3.15 The mode of recruitment to the post of Assistant Director will be 100% by promotion from Statistical Officer having completed five years of regular service.
3.16 New posts of Deputy Director [Plg. & Statistics] will be created in some of the Departments along with abolition of posts in some of the Departments. In accordance with the requirements of work, the post of Deputy Secretary [RS.10000-15200) sanctioned for Planning Cell of Health Department, Delhi Secretariat will be converted to Deputy Director [Plg. and Statistics]. There will be total of 17 posts of Dy. Director [Plg. & Statistics] as on date [Annexure - IV). 3.17 The mode of recruitment to the post of Deputy Director will be 75% by promotion from Assistant Director [Plg./Statistics] having regular service of five years in the grade and 25% by direct recruitment through UPSC.
3.18 Two posts of Joint Director [Plg. & Statistics] in the pay scale of Rs.12000-16500 stand created in Directorate of Planning, Economics and Statistics and Urban Development department respectively. There will be total of four posts of Joint Director [Plg. & Statistics] as on date [Annexure -V].
3.19 The Recruitment Rules for the respective posts will be amended accordingly.
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.05.29
AHUJA 15:33:41+05'30'
18
O.A. No. 118/2018
3.20 In compliance of the above-mentioned action points, 353 existing sanctioned posts of the cadre will stand abolished and 316 new posts will stand created in different departments taking into account all the sanctioned posts.
This order will come into force with immediate effect. This issues with the concurrence of the Finance Department vide their U.0.No.1090/DSF/RD dated 14/11/2006.
For and on behalf of the Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi Sd/-
[V.V.Bhat] Pr. Secretary [Plg."
[Emphasis supplied]
32. The Competent Authority decided vide statutory order dated 01.12.2006 to restructure the PSC of GNCTD to remove the present stagnation in the cadre. The first entry post in PSC will be SA with P.G. qualification in scale of pay Rs.5000-8000 through direct recruitment. The 263 sanctioned posts of S.I. with graduate qualification will stand abolished and in lieu of these 221 posts, posts of S.I., now 221 posts of S.A. created. In March, 2004, 452 posts of S.A. will be available.
33. The statutory provision of PSC restructuring order dated 01.12.2006, extracted hereinabove, Clause (3.7) provides that seniority of S.I. and S.A. after abolition of post of S.I. will stand in the present order of seniority first of S.A. followed by S.I. The Clause (3.8) further provides that S.I. who have not completed seven years of regular service in the grade will continue to draw their pay in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 till they complete 7 years of regular service against sanctioned posts of S.A. On completion of 7 years, they will draw their salary in pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 as S.A.
34. The Clauses 3.7 and 3.8 of the PSC restructuring Order dated 01.12.2006 having statutory force and one provision of the order cannot be used to defeat those of another. The sub-sections must be read as part of an integral whole and as being inter-dependent. The Constitution Bench in the case of Venkataramana Devaru Vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1958 SC 255 - Their Lordships observed that the rule of construction is well settled that when in an enactment, NARESH NARESH there are two provisions which cannot be reconciled KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.05.29 AHUJA 15:33:41+05'30' 19 O.A. No. 118/2018 with each other, they should be so interpreted that if possible, effect should be given to both. This is known as the rule of harmonious construction that the effect should be given to both, is the very essence of the rule. [Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Hon'ble Justice G.P. Singh, 13th Edition].
35. The harmonious construction of Clauses 3.7 and 3.8 of the PSC restructuring Order dated 01.12.2006 having statutory force, that S.I. after 7 years of regular service in the grade of Rs.4000-6000 against S.A. sanctioned posts and on completion of 7 years in service in S.I. grade against S.A. posts will be entitled to draw salary in SA grade in pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 and shall be placed in seniority list of SA first followed by S.I.
36. Now again coming to the facts of case in hand in light of PSC restructuring order dated 01.12.2006 having statutory force, the applicants appointed as S.I. on 19.01.2004, 08.01.2004, 31.10.2003, 10.03.2004, 17.11.2003, 22.03.2004, 21.05.2004, 24.02.2005, 21.09.2005, 28.07.2005, 21.10.2005, 29.11.2005, 08.08.2005, 27.07.2005 and 07.10.2005 respectively. The recruitment rules for SI and SA amended with immediate effect vide PSC restructuring Order dated 01.12.2006 and as per Clause 2 (iii|) to remove stagnation in cadre and to improve motivation. Once RR amended vide order dated 01.12.2006, then the notification dated 21.03.1995, amendment in RR for promotion from SI to SA, with 5 years regular service in SI grade, will not be applicable. Though sanctioned posts of S.I. in pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 stands abolished and 452 posts of S.A. stands created as on March, 2004. The Clause 3.8 of Order dated 01.12.2006 clearly provides that applicants - S.Is have to continue to draw their pay in scale of RS.4000-6000 till they complete 7years of regular service against sanctioned posts of S.A.
37. Undisputedly, the applicants completed 7 years of regular service as SI and applicants no. 1 to 7 promoted vide order dated 26.05.2011 to post of SA and applicants no.8 to 15 promoted vide order dated 09.01.2013 to the post of S.A. in pay scale of RS.5000- 8000 (pre-revised) PB-2 in pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 with GP NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.05.29 AHUJA 15:33:41+05'30' 20 O.A. No. 118/2018 Rs.4200. Once all the applicants promoted pursuant to restructuring of PSC vide order dated 01.12.2006 issued in exercise of power conferred by proviso to Article 309 of Constitution of India, after completing 7 years as S.I. as per Clause 3.8 of Order dated 01.12.2006, the amended recruitment rules for S.A. and thereafter placed in the impugned seniority list dated 08.09.2017 in accordance with Clause (3.7) & (3.8) of PSC restructure order dated 01.12.2006, first SA followed by S.I. In the impugned final seniority list of S.A, after S.A. all the applicants after promoted as SA vide Office Order dated 26.05.2011 and 09.01.2011 (Annexure A-4) as per Clauses 3.7 and 3.8 of PSC restructure Order dated 01.12.2006 amended recruitment rules placed at final seniority list of SA from final seniority No.678 to 685 and 734 to 743.
38. We are of the considered opinion that impugned final seniority list of SA dated 08.09.2017 has been prepared in consonance with statutory recruitment rules amended vide PSC restructuring order dated 01.12.2006, with immediate effect. The impugned final seniority dated 08.09.2017 is regulated in accordance with statutory rules and PSC restructuring order dated 01.12.2006 being just and fair. It is the admitted position that the applicants neither challenged PSC restructuring Order dated 01.12.2006, having statutory force, regulating the seniority in question nor challenged promotion Orders dated 26.05.2011 and 09.01.2023 as SA after completing 07 years of regular service as S.I. So also not challenged final seniority for the post of S.A. dated 04.02.2014 (Annexure A-5) and no relief can be granted. The OA is devoid of merits and no interference is called for.
39. The gist of contentions of the applicants that the impugned final seniority list dated 08.09.2017 of SA be set aside and same be re-casted w.e.f. 01.12.2006, the date of PSC restructuring fixing the seniority of applicants as SA, from the seniority list of S.I. with all consequential benefits. The RR dated 21.03.1995, stipulates channel of promotion from S.I. to S.A. with 5 years regular service in grade of S.A. The Service Department, GNCTD, under Allocation of Business Rules, 1993, advise other departments in service matters andNARESH NARESH advised for placement of S.I. in the grade of SA with minimum KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.05.29 AHUJA 15:33:41+05'30' 21 O.A. No. 118/2018 three years regular qualifying service. The applicants are entitled for promotion to the post of S.A. upon completing 3 years of regular service as S.I. The PSC Cadre restructuring Order dated 01.12.2006, the posts of S.I. is abolished and all 263 sanctioned post of SI abolished and 452 posts of SA in March 2004 created and seniority of SI and SA after abolition of posts of SI stand to be seniority first of SA and followed by SI and not after completing 7 years as S.I. and impugned seniority list dated 08.09.2017 as well as seniority list dated 04.02.2014 and to place applicants at appropriate place w.e.f. 01.12.2006 en bloc below SA and delete from promotion order dated 26.05.2011 and 09.01.2013 word "promoted to the post of SA and allow pay scale of SA cadre w.e.f. 01.12.2006 and seniority in accordance with order of restructuring dated 01.12.2006." Applicants are discharging duties of SA after 01.12.2006 and posts of SI stands abolished w.e.f. 01.12.2006 and no feeder post of SI to SA is in question and now order dated 26.05.2011 and 09.01.2013, promoting after seven years in regular service as SI than to SA in impugned seniority list dated 08.09.2017 and dated 04.02.2014 and assigning seniority in cadre of SA after 7 years in SI is contrary to RR with 5 years of residency period for SI to become SA. The condition of 7 years in S.I. as per PSC restructuring order dated 01.12.2006 for promotion to SA is illegal and once SI posts abolished, applicants are entitled to be placed as SA with pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 and cannot be treated promoted vide orders dated 26.05.2011 and 09.07.2013 after 7 years residency period as S.I.
40. The sum and substance of the contention of respondents that applicants are seeking re-casting of seniority of SA cadre w.e.f. 01.12.2006 and affected persons have not been impleaded as respondents. So also the PSC was restructured vide PSC restructuring Order dated 01.12.2006 with the approval of Lt. Governor, Delhi and after abolition of S.I., those S.I. who have completed seven years of regular service against sanctioned post of SA and after completing 7 years as SI i.e. applicants - SI, will draw salary in pay scale of Rs.4000-8000 in the SA cadre. As per statutory PSC restructuring Order dated 01.12.2006, all applicants NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.05.29 AHUJA 15:33:41+05'30' 22 O.A. No. 118/2018 are appointed as SI between 2010 and 2012 and completed 07 years as SI against available vacancies and therefore promoted vide order dated 26.05.2011 and 09.01.2013 and rightly placed in impugned seniority list dated 08.09.2017 and not eligible to be placed as SA w.e.f. 01.12.2006. The DPC in its meeting dated 18.05.2011 and 04.01.2013 assessed suitability of applicants after 7 years as SI in accordance with PSC restructuring order dated 01.12.2006 and as envisaged in the PSC order dated 01.12.2006 after 7 years in grade of S.I. w.e.f. 01.12.2006 and impugned final seniority of SA dated 08.09.2017 as well as seniority dated 04.02.2014 for SA is in consonance with statutory PSC restructure Order dated 01.12.2006. The impugned seniority list for SA dated 08.09.2017 is based on amended existing rules i.e. PSC order dated 01.12.2006 and no vested right accrued to the applicants to claim placement in rank of SA w.e.f. 01.12.2006 contrary to statutory PSC restructure order dated 01.12.2006.
41. So far as the contentions of the counsel for the applicants, the notification dated 21.03.1995, amendment in recruitment rules to the post of SI and SA, for promotion from SI to SA residency period of 5 years in regular service in grade of S.I. by the order and in name of the Lt. Governor of NCTD already stands amended vide Order dated 01.12.2006 of restructuring of PSC issued in exercise of power conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. So also as per PSC restructuring Order dated 01.12.2006, the RR stands amended with immediate effect. The impugned final seniority list of SA dated 08.09.2017 has been casted in terms of existing statutory rules i.e. PSC restructuring order dated 01.12.2006 and after 7 years of experience as S.I. against SA posts, official experience basis for placing in SA Cadre as rightly been done.
42. Learned counsel for applicants also much emphasized that in the process of cadre review, Service Department made certain observation that as per norms of GOI, DoP&T for abolition of posts of S.I. and to place them in grade of SA, these officials should fulfill minimum regular qualifying service of 3 years and the administrative NARESH NARESH department may ensure that incumbents fulfill the KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.05.29 AHUJA 15:33:41+05'30' 23 O.A. No. 118/2018 requisite minimum qualifying service in their existing grade to become eligible for upgraded post (Page 198 of OA and page 55 of Notesheet). Hence, applicants be promoted from the post of SI to SA within three years and not 7 years of residency period as per PSC restructuring Order dated 01.12.2006 as Lt. Governor on 27.10.2006 approved the proposed cadre review.
43. It is the fact of the matter that certain observation of Service Department for minimum residency 3 years in SI to become eligible for SA grade has been answered in para 28-32 by Finance Department and main features of proposed review approved by L.G. on 27.10.2006, nowhere mentioned for fixed 3 years regular service as S.I. for upgradation as S.A. The intention was to at least have 3 years minimum regular qualifying service whereas the said notesheets as evident from 54/N, Page 197 of OA, notesheet related to smaller issues discussed to be resolved and same in the notesheet does not create any right in favour of the applicants, there is no order issued in name of L.G. Delhi in favour of applicants and contention is devoid of merits.
44. Undisputedly, the notesheet 55/N dated 24.08.2006 at page 198 of OA is clause (iii) under caption - Besides are some issues to be resolved and discussed and said 3 years minimum qualifying service for SI to upgraded as SA, is not even in proposed cadre review features. The order sheet dated 24.08.2006 cannot be treated as decision of L.G. of Delhi. The expression in the notesheet dated 24.08.2006 was not concretized in the form of an order.
45. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab: AIR 1963 SC 395 while examining the effect of the note recorded by the Revenue Minister of PEPSU upon a file, their lordships were pleased to observe -
"9. The question, therefore, is whether he did in fact make such an order. Merely writing something on the file does not amount to an order. Before something amounts to an order of the State Government two things are necessary. The order has to be expressed in the name of the Governor as required by clause (1) of Article 166 and then it has to be communicated. As already indicated, no formal order modifying the decision of the Revenue Secretary was ever made. Until such an order is drawn up the State Government cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as bound by NARESH NARESHwhat was stated in the file. As long as the matter rested with him KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.05.29 AHUJA 15:33:41+05'30' 24 O.A. No. 118/2018 the Revenue Minister could well score out his remarks or minutes on the file and write fresh ones.
10. The business of State is a complicated one and has necessarily to be conducted through the agency of a large number of officials and authorities. The Constitution, therefore, requires and so did the Rules of Business framed by the Rajpramukh of PEPSU provide, that the action must be taken by the authority concerned in the name of the Rajpramukh. It is not till this formality is observed that the action can be regarded as that of the State or here, by the Rajpramukh. We may further observe that, constitutionally speaking, the Minister is no more than an adviser and that the head of the State, the Governor or Rajpramukh [ Till the abolition of that office by the Amendment of the Constitution in 1956.] , is to act with the aid and advice of his Council of Ministers. Therefore, until such advice is accepted by the Governor whatever the Minister or the Council of Ministers may say in regard to a particular matter does not become the action of the State until the advice of the Council of Ministers is accepted or deemed to be accepted by the Head of the State. Indeed, it is possible that after expressing one opinion about a particular matter at a particular stage a Minister or the Council of Ministers may express quite a different opinion, one which may be completely opposed to the earlier opinion. Which of them can be regarded as the "order" of the State Government? Therefore, to make the opinion amount to a decision of the Government it must be communicated to the person concerned. In this connection we may quote the following from the judgment of this Court in the State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh [AIR (1961) SC 493, 512] :
"Mr Gopal Singh attempted to argue that before the final order was passed the Council of Ministers had decided to accept the respondent's representation and to reinstate him, and that, according to him, the respondent seeks to prove by calling the two original orders. We are unable to understand this argument. Even if the Council of Ministers had provisionally decided to reinstate the respondent that would not prevent the Council from reconsidering the matter and coming to a contrary conclusion later on, until a final decision is reached by them and is communicated to the Rajpramukh in the form of advice and acted upon by him by issuing an order in that behalf to the respondent."
Thus it is of the essence that the order has to be communicated to the person who would be affected by that order before the State and that person can be bound by that order. For, until the order is communicated to the person affected by it, it would be open to the Council of Ministers to consider the matter over and over again and, therefore, till its communication the order cannot be regarded as anything more than provisional in character.
11. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the remarks or the order of the Revenue Minister, PEPSU are of no avail to the appellant."
46. In Kedar Nath Bahl v. State of Punjab: AIR 1979 SCC 220, Their Lordships were pleased to observe -
"21. Considerable reliance has been placed by the appellant on the Chief Minister's minute dated February 13, 1958, on the Minister's recommendation dated February 11, 1958. The Minister stated in his minute that he considered that the "adverse entries made against him (Bahl) should be expunged and he should be confirmed NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.05.29 AHUJA 15:33:41+05'30' 25 O.A. No. 118/2018 on the completion of his probation". That led to the following order of the Chief Minister dated February 13, 1958:
"I agree with R.M. but he may kindly arrange to assign requisite staff to the Landscape Architect so that his services may be fully utilised by the Capital Project Administration in the preparation and execution of Landscape Plans."
The appellant could justifiably argue that what the Chief Minister had agreed to was not only the expunction of the adverse entries, but also the Minister's proposal for his confirmation, and that an order should have been issued accordingly. But the fact remains that order was not issued for his confirmation and, on the other hand, when the Minister concerned sent the case back to the Chief Minister on October 24/28, 1958, with the proposal to review the earlier decision for expunction of the adverse entries, and to abolish the post of Landscape Architect and to revert the appellant to his parent department, the Chief Minister passed the following order on October 29, 1958:
"It would not look proper to modify the orders already passed by the previous Minister about expunging of the remarks, and agreed to by me. I agree regarding reversion of Shri Bahl to his parent department with immediate effect."
It is therefore quite clear that after the matter had been examined further in consultation with the officers concerned, the Chief Minister modified his earlier order dated February 13, 1958 and passed an order for the appellant's immediate reversion to his parent department. It was therefore permissible for the department to issue orders accordingly. At any rate, the earlier order of the Chief Minister dated October 13, 1958 could not give rise to any right in favour of the appellant as it was not expressed in the name of the Governor as required by Article 166 of the Constitution and was not communicated to the appellant. As has been held by this Court in Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1963 SC 395:
1962 Supp 3 SCR 713] it was only a provisional order which was open to reconsideration by the Chief Minister and did not bind anyone. Nothing could therefore turn on the Chief Minister's order dated February 13, 1958, when it was specifically rescinded by his subsequent order dated October 29, 1958. There could in fact be no question of appellant's confirmation as Landscape Architect as it was a temporary post all through until it was allowed to lapse on November 4, 1958."
47. In State of Bihar and others v. Kripalu Shankar and others, AIR 1987 SC 1554, Their Lordships were please to hold:
"16. Viewed in this light, can it be said that what is contained in a notes file can ever be made the basis of an action either in contempt or in defamation. The notings in a notes file do not have behind them the sanction of law as an effective order. It is only an expression of a feeling by the concerned officer on the subject under review. To examine whether contempt is committed or not, what has to be looked into is the ultimate order. A mere expression of a view in notes file cannot be the sole basis for action in contempt. Business of a State is not done by a single officer. It involves a complicated process. In a democratic set up it is conducted through the agency of a large number of officers. That being so, the noting by one officer, will not afford a valid ground to NARESH NARESHinitiate action in contempt. We have thus no hesitation to hold that KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.05.29 AHUJA 15:33:41+05'30' 26 O.A. No. 118/2018 the expression of opinion in notes file at different levels by concerned officers will not constitute criminal contempt. It would not, in our view, constitute civil contempt either for the same reason as above since mere expression of a view or suggestion will not bring it within the vice of sub-section (c) of Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which defines civil contempt. Expression of a view is only a part of the thinking process preceding Government action or sub-section (b) - Ed.
17. In the case of Bachhittar Singh v. The State of Punjab, [1962] Suppl. 3 SCR 713 a Constitution Bench of this Court had to consider the effect of an order passed by a Minister on a file. which order was not communicated. This Court, relying upon Article 166(1) of the Constitution, held that the order of the Revenue Minister, PEPSU could not amount to an order by the State Government unless it was expressed in the name of Rajpramukh as required by the said Article and was then communicated to the party concerned. This is how this Court dealt with the effect of the noting by a Minister on the file:
"The question, therefore, is whether he did in fact make such an order. Merely writing some- thing on the file does not amount to an order. Before something amounts to an order of the State Government two things are necessary. The order has to be expressed in the name of the Governor as required by clause (1) of Article 166 and then if has to be communicated. As already indicated, no formal order modifying the decision of the Revenue Secretary was ever made. Until such an order is drawn up the State Government cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as bound by what was stated in the file. As long as the matter rested with him the Revenue Minister could well score out his remarks or minutes on the file and write fresh ones."
48. In Sethi Auto Service Station and another vs. Delhi Development Authority and others : 2009 (1) SCC 180, it is held by Their Lordships -
14. It is trite to state that notings in a departmental file do not have the sanction of law to be an effective order. A noting by an officer is an expression of his viewpoint on the subject. It is no more than an opinion by an officer for internal use and consideration of the other officials of the department and for the benefit of the final decision-making authority. Needless to add that internal notings are not meant for outside exposure. Notings in the file culminate into an executable order, affecting the rights of the parties, only when it reaches the final decision-making authority in the department; gets his approval and the final order is communicated to the person concerned.
17. ...Mere favourable recommendations at some level of the decision making process, in our view, are of no consequence and shall not bind the DDA. We are, therefore, in complete agreement with the High Court that the notings in the file did not confer any right upon the appellants, as long as they remained as such..."
49. In case of State of Uttaranchal & Anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar Vaish & Ors, reported in (2011) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 754, Their Lordships observed as -
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.05.29
AHUJA 15:33:41+05'30'
27
O.A. No. 118/2018
"18. In our view, the State Government had rightly rejected the recommendations made by the District Magistrate for payment of Rs.70,99,951.50 because while doing so, the concerned officer conveniently ignored the fact that Ram Rattan Lal had already been declared as unauthorised occupant of the land in question. In the face of the decision taken by the State Government, the High Court could not have relied upon the recommendations made by the District Magistrate by treating the same as an order of the State Government. It is settled law that all executive actions of the Government of India and the Government of a State are required to be taken in the name of the President or the Governor of the State concerned, as the case may be [Articles 77(1) and 166(1)]. Orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the president or the Governor of a State, as the case may be, are required to be authenticated in the manner specified in rules made by the President or the Governor, as the case may be [Articles 77(2) and 166(2)]. In other words, unless an order is expressed in the name of the President or the Governor and is authenticated in the manner prescribed by the rules, the same cannot be treated as an order on behalf of the Government.
19. A nothing recorded in the file is merely a noting simpliciter and nothing more. It merely represents expression of opinion by the particular individual. By no stretch of imagination, such noting can be treated as a decision of the Government. Even if the competent authority records its opinion in the file on the merits of the matter under consideration, the same cannot be termed as a decision of the Government unless it is sanctified and acted upon by issuing an order in accordance with Articles 77(1) and (2) or Articles 166(1) and (2). The noting in the file or even a decision gets culminated into an order affecting right of the parties only when it is expressed in the name of the President or the Governor, as the case may be, and authenticated in the manner provided in Article 77(2) or Article 166(2). A noting or even a decision recorded in the file can always be reviewed/reversed/overruled or overturned and the court cannot take cognizance of the earlier noting or decision for exercise of the power of judicial review. - State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh AIR 1961 SC 493, Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1963 SC 395, State of Bihar v. Kripalu Shankar (1987) 3 SCC 34, Rajasthan Housing Board v. Shri Kishan (1993) 2 SCC 84, Sethi Auto Service Station v. DDA (2009) 1 SCC 180 and Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 705."
50. In Swapan Kumar Chowdhury Vs. Tapas Chakravorty, (1995) 4 SCC 478, Their Lordships observed that "the State legislature in exercise of its power under Article 309 of Constitution or State Government in exercise of the power under the proviso to that Article lay down conditions of service of Government employees."
CONCLUSION
51. In light of aforesaid analysis, we hold that impugned final seniority list of Statistical Assistants, Group-B (Non-Gazetted) Level- 6 in Pay Matrix Rs.9300-34,800/- with GP Rs.4200 (pre-revised of Planning and Statistical Cadre, Govt. of NCT of Delhi) dated NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.05.29 AHUJA 15:33:41+05'30' 28 O.A. No. 118/2018 08.09.2017 is in strict adherence to statutory recruitment rules amended pursuant to restructuring of Planning & Statistical Cadre vide Order No.9(12)/2003/CC/Plg./10269 dated 01.12.2006 for and on behalf of the Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi. Thus, no interference is warranted in the present OA.
52. The impugned final seniority list of Statistical Assistants dated 08.09.2017 (Annexure A-1) remains unassailable and applicants are not entitled to the reliefs sought by them in the instant O.A.
53. Consequently, the OA being devoid of merits is dismissed.
54. There shall be no order as to costs.
55. As a sequel thereof, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall also stands disposed of.
(Ajay Pratap Singh) (Sanjeeva Kumar)
Member (J) Member (A)
/na/
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.05.29
AHUJA 15:33:41+05'30'