Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri R.P. Chauhan vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 27 September, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH O.A. No.3614/2010 M.A. No.2801/2010 New Delhi this the 27th day of September, 2011 Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) Honble Mr. Shailendra Pandey, Member (A) 1. Shri R.P. Chauhan, S/o Shri S.S. Chauhan R/o A-201, Prashant Vihar, Rohini, Delhi. 2. Shri J.S. Rawat, S/o Late Shri Jeet Singh Rawat, R/o A-25, Mandakani Apartments, Pitampura, Delhi-110034. 3. Shri Brahma Nand Kagdiyal, S/o Late Shri Abhay Anand Kagdiyal, R/o C-70, Mandakani Apartments, Pitampura, Delhi-110041. 4. Shri Darshan Singh, S/o Late Shri Kishan Singh, R/o Flat No. 36, Suruchi Apartments, Plot NO. 31, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi. -Applicants (By Advocate: Shri K.P. Gupta) Versus 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Through its Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. Director of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Directorate of Education, Old Secretariat, Delhi. -Respondents (By Advocate: Mrs. Sumedha Sharma) O R D E R
Honble Mr. Shailendra Pandey, Member (A) Shri R.P. Chauhan and three others have filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking issue of a direction to the respondents to fix their pay in the pay scale of Rs.10000-325-15200 for the period that they actually worked as Principal/Head of Office along with grant of annual increments in the said pay scale with further direction to pay the arrears of pay and allowances with interest.
2. Brief facts, as set out in the OA, are that the applicants who were Vice Principal in various senior secondary schools under the Directorate of Education during the undermentioned periods specified against their names, in compliance of the orders issued by their superiors. These orders are at Annexure A-4 to Annexure A-6B respectively.
Name Designation Name of the school From To R.P.Chauhan Vice Principal G.B.S.S.S. P-II, Kamdhenu, Mangol Puri, Delhi 01.04.2003 31.07.2008 J.S. Rawat, Applicant No.2 Vice Principal GBSSS Nithari,Delhi 19.07.1997 31.01.1999 Brahma Nand Kagdiyal Applicant N0.3 Vice Principal GBSSS No. 5, Sarojni Nagar, New Delhi 01.08.1997 30.11.1998 Darshan Singh, Applicant NO.4 Vice Principal 1) Sarvodaya Vidyalaya Ali Ganj
2) GBSSS, Shaheed Anushula Prasad, Sexctor-5, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, N. Delhi 31.08.2005 17.02.2007 11.12.2006 31.10.2008 It is the case of the applicants that they are entitled for payment of their salary in the pay scale of Rs.1000-325-15200 prescribed for the post of Principal on the principle of quantum meriut for the periods mentioned above, during which they performed all the duties attached to the post of Principal, despite their posting as Vice Principal. It is stated that the law in this regard already stands settled vide orders dated 24.10.2002 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.3230/2001 Shri M.P. Singh Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others, which was confirmed by the High Court of Delhi vide order dated 22.03.2007 and SLP bearing No.9835/2007 preferred against the order passed by the High Court was also dismissed vide order dated 12.l0.2007 passed by the Honble Apex Court. It is further stated that the order passed by this Tribunal has already been implemented by the respondents. It is further submitted that in similar circumstances one Shri S.C. Gupta along with four others had approached this Tribunal in OA No. 1166/2009 for grant of the pay scale of Rs.10000-15200 prescribed for post of Principals and this Tribunal vide its order dated 06.10.2009 was pleased to allow the same. The challenge to the order in W.P. (C ) No. 724/2010 was also dismissed by the High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 06.09.2010 and the order passed by this Tribunal, therefore, became final. It is also stated that the applicants had made representations dated 17/18.11.2009 & 11.12.2009 (Annexure A1 to Annexure A3A) to the Respondent No.2 but the same remained unresponded to and thereafter filed the present OA.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants, therefore, submits that the case is squarely covered by the aforementioned judgment of the Tribunal dated 06.10.2009 and that non grant of financial benefit to the four applicants who are identically placed is an illegality on the part of the respondents. They have, therefore, sought a direction referred to above.
4. Respondents have opposed the OA and have stated that the applicants had worked only as Head of Office under the declaration issued under Rule 14 of Delegation of Financial Power Rules-1978 which states that Head of the Department is empowered to declare any gazetted officer as Head of Office and that they have neither been declared as Principal nor they were entrusted to carry out the job of Principal. After declaring them as Head of Office or Head of School as the case may be, they started performing the duties, without any grievance and now after their superannuation, they have started claiming the higher pay of Principals. It is stated that the Head of Office is not a post in itself having any specific pay scale and Recruitment Rules and there is a lot of difference between the two concepts viz. declaring persons as a Head of Office and posting/appointing as Principal, as the appointment of Principal is done only through a formal process of selection by a DPC through the UPSC according to the notified Recruitment Rules. Thus, the applicants who had performed the duties of Head of office as per Rule 14 under Delegation of Financial Power Rules any nomenclature are not entitled to any pay scale as claimed by them. During the arguments, learned counsel for the respondents also stated that the case would attract limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act as the applicants did not claim any pay scale during the period they started performing the duties as Head of office.
5. We have heard the rival contentions of both counsel and have been through the pleadings.
6. It is not in dispute that the four applicants, who were the Principals, were asked to perform/look after the duties of Head of the school during the period mentioned herein above. By way of an example, we extract order No. DE-54/SW-19/Edm/97 dated 12.08.1997, which reads as follows:-
Shri Brahma Nand Kagdiyal, Vice Principal, G.B.S.S.S No. 5, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi is hereby declared as HEAD OF THE SCHOOL with immediate effect, in supersession of previous office order wherein Shri N.K. Sharma, Vice Principal, was declared as HEAD OF OFFICE.
A perusal of the above order would show that the aforementioned order, declaring the applicant as Head of School, was issued in supersession of an earlier order whereby one Shri N.K. Sharma, Vice Principal had been declared as Head of office. It is also not in dispute that the post of Principal was lying vacant, and that the above arrangement was continued for a considerable length of time. Thus, the submission of the applicants that they worked on the post of Principal and actually discharged the duties of the post of Principal has considerable force in it. As the Head of the Institutions, there are many decisions etc. that are required to be taken and many important items of work to be done which have to be attended to on priority and cannot be deferred unless the arrangement is a very short one.
Further, we find that the case is covered by the judgments of this Tribunal in OA No.1166/2009, relevant extract of which is re-produced below:-
We find that the case of the applicants would be completely covered in their favour by the decision of this Tribunal confirmed up to the Honble Supreme Court. We may only mention that directions given by this Tribunal in OA No.3230/2001 were modified by the High Court in its decision dated 22.3.2007 in WP( C ) No. 8111/2002, and that is why the same directions came to be issued while disposing of OA No.2156/2008 by this Tribunal vide its order dated 6.3.2009. We issue the same directions in this case as have been issued by us in OA No.2156/2008.
It is trite that when a decision of a Court attains finality, it must not only be respected but should be enforced and implemented evenly and without discrimination in respect of all the employees who are entitled to the benefits which has been allowed to employees who have obtained them through orders from the Court. In this connection, we are reminded of the very pertinent observation of the Honble Apex Court in Inder Pal Yadav v. Union of India, (1985) 2 SCC 648 that those who could not come to the Court need not be at a comparative disadvantage to those who rushed in here, if they are otherwise similarly situated, they are entitled to similar treatment, if not by anyone else at the hands of this Court. ... We do not accept that the applicant should be denied this benefit by stating that they have not taken up the issue at the relevant point of time and, therefore, limitation would apply.
7. For parity of reasons given by in OA No. 3230/2001 decided on 24.10.2002 in the matter of Shri M.P. Singh vs. NCT of Delhi & Ors., we allow this Original Application to the extent it was allowed by the Honble High Court vide its judgment dated 22.03.2007 passed in WP (C) No.8111/2002 in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors vs. M.P. Singh. Let the pay of the applicants be fixed accordingly and the arrears be made over to them, as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.
(Shailendra Pandey) (Mrs. Meera Chhibber)
Member (A) Member (J)
cc.