Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ajay Kumar vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. Through on 20 January, 2015
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi O.A.No.3924/2013 Order Reserved on:15.01.2015 Order pronounced on 20.01.2015 Honble Shri V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J) Honble Shri P. K. Basu, Member (A) 1. Ajay Kumar S/o Sh. Mehar Chand R/o H.No.15/72, Kalyan Puri Delhi 91. 2. Anju W/o Sh. Ajay Goyal R/o Flat No.208, Dr. Ambedkar Hospital Residential Complex, Sector 6 Rohini, Delhi. 3. Bhupender Kumar S/o Sh. Budh Ram R/o 16/611, I-Block, Bapa Nagar Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh New Delhi. 4. Devender Kumar S/o Sh. Ved Prakash R/o H.No.B-518, Madipur Colony New Delhi 110 063. 5. Jagdish Prasad S/o Sh. Indrasan Prasad R/o H.No.2029/3568 Near Himalay Public School Parvatiya Colony, NIT Faridabad-121005. 6. Jitender Kumar S/o Sh. Ratan Lal R/o H.No.12/89, Kalyan Puri Delhi 91. 7. Krishan Kumar S/o Sh. Bhagirath Lal R/o H.No.16/789, E-Bapa Nagar Padam Singh Road Karol Bagh New Delhi 110 005. 8. Kuldeep Singh S/o Late Sh. Asha Ram R/o F-1772, Netaji Nagar New Delhi 110 023. 9. Mukesh Kumar S/o Krishan Lal R/o H.No.4/5, Type-III Arya Bhatt Residential Complex Ashok Vihar Delhi 52. 10. Naveen Kumar S/o Late Sh. Suresh Kumar R/o H.No.103-B, Bharat Nagar New Friends Colony New Delhi 25. 11. Niru Satsangi D/o Sh. Sanjeev Kumar R/o H.No.A-21B, Sheikh Sarai Phase-II, New Delhi 17. 12. Pradeep Kumar S/o Sh. Mahaveer Singh R/o H.No.C-181, Gokar Puri Delhi 94. 13. Prem Singh S/o SH. Inder Raj Singh R/o 214, Mazid Mode New Delhi. 14. Rajesh Kumar Verma S/o Sh. Puranmal Verma R/o H.No.49-50, Khasra No.116 Near Ramchander Market Rajpur Khurd Extn. New Delhi 68. 15. Sammi Kumar S/o Sh. Om Prakash R/o H.No.A-4A, Shivangi Kunj Opp. BG-1 Paschim Vihar New Delhi-63. 16. Sanjay Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Saran R/o QTR. No.50, Type-I Delhi Govt. PWD Qtr. Sector-3, Near DPS Dwarka New Delhi. 17. Satish S/o Late Sh. Jai Prakash R/o H.No.E-492, Gali No.10 Hardev Puri Delhi 93. 18. Shailendra Kumar Heta S/o Sh. Harbir Singh R/o H.No.290, Gali No.5 Durga Puri Extn. Delhi- 93. 19. Tarun Kant S/o Late Sh. Ram Gopal R/o B-149, New Moti Nagar New Delhi 15. 20. Manoj Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Kishan R/o H.No.483, Gali No.7 Bheem Nagar, By Pass Road Ghaziabad, U.P. 21. Sanjay Kumar S/o SH. Mahendra Singh R/o H.No.5/976, Gali No.1 Shankar Garden, Bahadurgarh Haryana. 22. Manoj Kumar Late Sh. Raghvir Singh R/o H.No.228, Mohalla Kajiwara, Ward-6 Shamli District Shamli U.P.-247776. 23. Tarun Lata W/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar R/o H.No.521/38A, Gali No.5 Vijay Park Maujpur Delhi. 24. Yogesh Kumar S/o Sh. Ami Chand R/o H.No.C-31, Kondli Delhi 96. Applicants (By Advocate: Mrs. Priyanka Bhardwaj for Shri M.K.Bhardwaj) Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. through 1. The Chief Secretary Govt. of NCT of Delhi New Secretariat I.P.Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary Service Department New Secretariat I.P.Estate New Delhi. 3. The Joint Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs North Block New Delhi. 4. The Chairman Delhi Staff Service Selection Board Karkardooma, Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Vijay Pandita) O R D E R By V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J):
In this OA, the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:
i) to declare the action of respondents in not fixing the pay of the applicants as LDC (Grade-IV) at par with their batchmates and juniors and denying benefits of Old Pension Scheme/GPF as illegal and issue directions for fixing the pay of applicants at par with their batch mates given appointment in 2003 and regulate their Pension under Old Pension Scheme governed Under CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 and not under New Pension Scheme made effective from 01.01.2004 and given an consequential benefits.
ii) to quash and set aside the impugned letter dated 17.05.2013 and direct the respondents to allot GPF number to the applicants and sent the same to the present employer for necessary action.
iii) To allow the OA with cost.
iv) To pass such other and further orders in the interest of justice.
4. The brief facts of the case are that when the respondents issued an advertisement for filling up of the posts of LDC/Grade-IV (Post Code No.101/2000) in the year 2000, the applicants applied under SC category pursuant to the said advertisement. The respondents declared the results of the general category persons and gave appointments to the said general category candidates during, 2003 but the applicants appointment was delayed due to pending litigations in the Court, and ultimately, the applicants were appointed as LDC (Grade IV) in the years 2005/2006. However, the respondents did not give all the benefits of seniority, pay fixation and old pension scheme benefits as given to their batchmates. It is stated that although some of the similarly placed persons have been accorded the said benefits but in the case of applicants, as the necessary orders were not issued by the Court, they have not been accorded the said benefits. Hence, the present OA.
5. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the applicants, at the very outset, stated that this Tribunal allowed various similar OAs, and one of which is the OA No.1795/2011 (Lalit Kumar & Others v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.) decided on 01.08.2012, and the applicants herein are also identically placed to the applicants in the said OA No.1795/2011.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents, in the written/oral submissions, has denied that the applicants are similarly placed as that of the applicants in OA No.1795/2011, and submitted that the OA is bared by limitation and accordingly, the OA is liable to be dismissed.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and have gone through the pleadings on record.
8. While examining the matter on the contentions raised by both the parties, it is noticed that when one of the contentions taken by the respondents in the said OA No.1795/2011 was that the applicants therein were appointed only in the year 2006 they are not entitled for any increments from the year 2003, that is the year in which the general category candidates belonging to their batch have been appointed, and therefore, they cannot claim seniority in the cadre of Assistant Teacher (Primary) when they were not even born in that cadre, this Tribunal dealt with all such contentions and finally passed the following order:
9. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we allow this OA with the direction to the respondents to grant notional seniority to the applicant as per their respective positions in the merit list prepared by the DSSSB in the year 2002. They shall also be given appointments on notional basis from the dates the first general category official has joined duty. Consequently, they will be entitled for notional increments and fixation of pay and other benefits like GPF, Pension, etc. as admissible to their batch mates belonging to the unreserved category. The respondents shall pass appropriate orders in this regard within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
9. Recently, based on the aforesaid Judgement, we have also decided the OA No.924/2013 and batch, the applicants therein also, in pursuance of an Advertisement issued in the year 2002, for selection to the posts of Assistant Teacher in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), applied and participated in the selection process. The respondents declared the results of most of the candidates in December, 2002 and on issuing of offer of appointment letters during June, 2003, those candidates were allowed to join duty. However, the respondents have not declared the results of the applicants and certain others on the ground that they do not belong to the reserved communities of Delhi and as such they are not entitled to reservation in Delhi and accordingly withheld the results of the applicants and others, therein, for parity of reasons, the said OA and batch, was allowed as under:
10. In the circumstances, and in view of the fact that the applicants are similarly situated like the applicants in OA No.1795/2011 and OA No.229/2013, the OA No.924/2013 is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant notional seniority to the applicants as per their respective positions in the merit list prepared by the DSSSB in the year 2002. They shall also be given appointments on notional basis from the date the first General Category candidate has joined duty. Consequently, they will be entitled for notional increments and fixation of pay and other benefits like GPF, Pension, etc. as admissible to their batch mates, belonging to the Unreserved category. However, they are not entitled for any arrears of pay. The respondents shall pass appropriate orders in this regard within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.
11. In view of the aforesaid orders passed in OA No.924/2013, for parity of reasons, the respective M.As filed for joining together and the O.A.No.928/2013, O.A.No.930/2013 and O.A.No.938/2013 are also accordingly allowed in terms of the directions issued to the respondents. No costs.
10. In the circumstances and for parity of reasons, the OA is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant notional seniority, if not already given, to the applicants as per their position in the merit list prepared by the DSSSB in the relevant years. They shall also be given fixation of pay on notional basis from the date the first General Category candidate has joined duty. Consequently, they will be entitled for notional increments and other benefits like GPF, Pension, etc. as admissible to their batch mates, belonging to the Unreserved category. However, they are not entitled for any arrears of pay. The respondents shall pass appropriate orders in this regard within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.
(P. K. Basu) (V. Ajay Kumar) Member (A) Member (J) /nsnrvak/