Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri V.P.Singh S/O Late Sh.Simroo Singh vs The Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 10 November, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA 367/2010 New Delhi this the 10th day of November, 2010. Honble Mr. Justice V.K.Bali, Chairman Honble Mr. L.K.Joshi, Vice Chairman (A) Shri V.P.Singh S/o Late Sh.Simroo Singh, R/o House No. 359/6, Durgapuri Extension, Shahdara, Delhi & Retired as Principlal, under Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Applicant (By Advocate Shri S.S.Tiwari ) VERSUS 1. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi, through Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Sectt., near Indira Gandhi Stadium, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. Director of Education, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Old Sectt, Delhi-54. 3. Additional Director of Education (Admn.), Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Old Sectt, Delhi-54. 4. Deputy Director of Education, (NE) Zone-4, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi. .. Respondents (By Advocate Shri Sandeep Jha for Shri H.K.Gangwani ) O R D E R Mr. L.K.Joshi, Vice Chairman (A) :
The Applicant is aggrieved that although persons junior to him have been granted Selection Scale of the Post Graduate Teacher (PGT), yet he has been ignored for the same because of the mistake of the Respondents, which they are not rectifying. The Applicant belongs to the Scheduled Castes (SC) category. The persons belonging to the grade of PGT have been given the Senior Scale by order dated 18.12.2009 with retrospective effect from the date of their eligibility, which includes persons junior to the Applicant also. He is seeking directions to the Respondents to consider his case for grant of Selection Scale in the grade of the PGT from the date of his eligibility for the same.
2. The Applicant joined the Respondents as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) on 14.11.1973. He was promoted as PGT on 23.11.1979 and was granted Selection Grade on 23.11.1980. He was promoted as Vice Principal on 6.08.1996 and as Principal on 28.08.2003. He retired from the post of Principal on 28.02.2007. The Applicant was due for grant of Selection Scale after completion of 12 years of regular service in the grade of PGT, that is, from 14.11.1992. The Respondents granted Selection Scale in the year 1994 and 1997 to those who had completed 12 years of service in the aforesaid grade. However, the Respondents overlooked the entitlement of the applicant, while the scale was granted to his juniors. Such Senior Scale was granted for the year 1994 by order dated 29.03.1994 and for the year 1997 by order dated 19.03.1999. Persons junior to him were granted the Selection Scale. The Applicant had been assiduously pursuing his case and the name of the Applicant had also been figuring in the eligibility list for the Selection Scale. The Applicant had also sought information regarding his eligibility under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and he was informed thus:
3. Why not released the selection scale/grade till date?
No DSC has been held after 1998. It is further clarified that the cases falling under the eligibility Zone will be placed, for consideration before the DSC. When the said meeting takes place in due course. It has been observed from office record that the name of Sh. Ved Pal Singh (DOB 15/2/47) is included in the eligibility zone.
The process as mentioned in the above answer to the query under the Right to Information Act, 2005 was started, which culminated in the orders of promotion dated 18.12.2009, the impugned order, in which the Applicant was again overlooked.
3. The facts are not disputed by the Respondents. The learned counsel for the Respondents first argued that there were no vacancies for the SC category because of which the Applicant could not be promoted. However, when it was pointed out that persons junior to the Applicant had been promoted, it was stated that a criminal case was pending against the Applicant and that the Applicant had never applied for promotion to the Selection Scale.
4. The learned counsel for the Applicant countered the above argument by urging that only an FIR was lodged against the Applicant but no cognizance had been taken by the Magistrate of the said FIR. The learned counsel for the Applicant would contend that under Rule 9 (6) (b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 it is provided that:
"9 (6) (b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted
(i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a police officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made, and..".
Moreover, on the date of eligibility of the Applicant and on the date persons junior to him were given the Selection Scale, there was no criminal case or disciplinary proceedings pending against the Applicant. It was further contended that there was no provision for the PGTs to make an application for the promotion.
5. The arguments of the Respondents have no force at all and these are totally specious. There does not seem to be any reason whatsoever for not granting the Selection Scale to the Applicant because none has been brought to our notice by the Respondents. The Respondents have informed the applicant in reply to his query under the Right to Information Act that he was eligible for promotion and would be considered when the next meeting of the Departmental Screening Committee was held. However, when the meeting of the said committee was held, the case of the Applicant was again ignored. It has not been disputed by the Respondents that there was no criminal case pending against the Applicant till his retirement and that the provisions of the Rule 9 (6) (b) would not apply in the instant case. The learned counsel for the Respondents has also not contradicted the argument of the Applicant that there was no need for applying for the Selection Scale.
6. In view of the above discussion, we direct the Respondents to grant Selection Scale to the Applicant from the date the person immediately junior to him was granted the Selection Scale and pay the arrears to the Applicant with six per cent simple interest per year within eight weeks of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. The Applicant would also be eligible for the cost of litigation, which we compute as Rs.5000.
( L.K.Joshi ) ( V.K.Bali) Vice Chairman (A) Chairman sk