Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Sohan Singh vs Commissioner Of Police on 3 August, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA 3812/2010 NEW DELHI THIS THE 3rd DAY OF AUGUST, 2011 HONBLE MR. G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MR. KHUSHI RAM, MEMBER (A) 1. Sh. Sohan Singh S/o Sh. Shankar Singh R/o H. No. 56-C, Police Colony, Model Town, Delhi. 2. Sh. Madan Mohan Bhatt S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Prasad Bhatt R/o 80A Gali No. 1, East Sadatpur, Delhi-94. 3. Sh. Balwinder Singh S/o Sh. Jaga Singh R/o P-11, New Police Line, Kingsway Camp, Delhi-9. 4. Sh. Ravinder Singh S/o Sh. Daya Nand R/o Barrack No. 1 PCR Line Model Town, Delhi-9 5. Sh. Gian Singh S/o Sh. Ghisa Ram R/o Barrack No. 1 PS, Shalimar Bagh Delhi. Applicant. (By Advocate Shri Ajesh Luthra) Versus 1. Commissioner of Police PHQ, MSO Building, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Dy. Commissioner of Police, PCR, PHQ, MSO Building, IP Estate, New Delhi. 3. Dy. Commissioner of Police Establishment PHQ, MSO Building, IP Estate, New Delhi. Respondents. (By Advocate Shri Amit Anand) ORDER
Mr. G. George Paracken:
The request of the applicants which has been rejected vide the Annexure A-1 letter dated 15.06.2010 was to grant them benefits under the ACP/MACP Schemes. The reason given for the rejection in the said letter is that as per the Points 4 to 6 contained in the DOPT OM No. 36043/1/97-Estt (D)/(Vol.IV) dated 18.07.2001 and PHQ Circular No. 13534-75/P.Br./PHQ dated 05.06.2008, if the appointment is made to the post in higher grades, then such appointments, whether by direct recruitment or by transfer or initially on deputation followed by absorption, will be treated as direct recruitment and the past service/promotion (which was in a different scale) will not be counted for the grant of ACP/MACP Scheme. Accordingly, as the service of the applicants rendered in the lower scale prior to the date of their permanent absorption in Delhi Police has not been taken into account for the purpose of grant of ACP/MACP to them, they were held not entitled for grant of second and third MACP at the present stage.
2. All the applicants were initially appointed as Constables in Border Security Force (BSF for short) and they came to Delhi Police and got themselves absorbed there. Their service particulars are as under:
Applicant No.1 Applicant No.2 Applicant No.3 Applicant No.4 Applicant No.5
1. Date of enlistment in BSF as Constable 05.01.1979 02.02.1971 24.08.1976 25.07.1974 01.08.1975
2. Date of joining Delhi Police on deputation 13.02.1986 21.02.1986 01.04.1986 01.04.1988 28.04.1988
3. Date of absorption in Delhi Police 05.12.1988 10.04.1989 05.12.1988 1991 26.08.1988
4. Date of Promotion as Head Constable 1993 24.09.1994 24.09.1994 13.11.2001 13.11.2001
5. Date of Promotion as ASI 02.06.2010 - - - -
3. The applicants have submitted that since the initial service rendered in the parent organization of such deputationists Constables who were later absorbed in the Delhi Police was not being counted for the purposes of seniority in Delhi Police on the ground that the pay scale of Constables in the parent department was lower than the pay scale of Constables in Delhi Police, SI Roop Lal and another approached the Apex Court as their claims were not accepted by this Tribunal as well as the High Court of Delhi. The Apex Court in its judgment in S.I. ROOPLAL AND ANR. VS. LT. GOVERNOR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, DELHI AND OTHERS, JT 1999 (9) SC 597 upheld the right of the petitioners/appellants therein to count their service from the date of their regular appointment in the post of Sub-Inspector in BSF for the purpose of computing their seniority in the cadre of Sub-Inspector (Executive) in the Delhi Police, is restored. The relevant part of the said judgment is reproduced as under:
15. We will now take up the question whether the appellants are entitled to count their service rendered by them as Sub-Inspector in the BSF for the purpose of their seniority after absorption as Sub-Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police or not. We have already noticed the fact that it is pursuant to the needs of Delhi Police that these officials were deputed to Delhi Police from the BSF following the procedure laid down in Rule 5(h) of the Rules and subsequently absorbed as contemplated under the said Rules. It is also not in dispute that at some point of time in the BSF, the appellants' services were regularised in the post of Sub-Inspector and they were transferred as regularly appointed Sub-Inspectors to Delhi Police Force. Therefore, on being absorbed in an equivalent cadre in the transferred post, we find no reason why these transferred officials should not be permitted to count their service in the parent department...
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the Delhi Police extended he same benefits to the applicants also and counted the length of service rendered by them in their parent organization towards seniority and their names were inserted at appropriate slots in the seniority list. They were also granted retrospective promotion with effect from the date their juniors have been promoted. They have also been granted the benefit of ACP Scheme introduced by the Government in the year 1999. However, when the Sixth Central Pay Commission has introduced MACP Scheme which entails financial upgradation on completion of 10,20 and 30 years of service, they requested to grant the benefits under the said Scheme but the respondents after consideration of their request rejected the same, as stated earlier vide Annexure A-1 order dated 15.06.2010.
5. The learned counsel for the applicants Shri Ajesh Luthra has submitted that this case is covered by an earlier Order of a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA 1643/2010 Antony Mathew Vs. Commissioner of Police decided on 09.02.2011. It was held in the said Order that the Applicants absorption in Delhi Police in a higher pay scale cannot be counted as a financial upgradation. The relevant part of the judgment is as under:
18. Viewing it from any angle, the respondents have erred in their view that the applicant initially joined in Delhi Police on deputation in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 with deputation allowance and was absorbed in higher pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 which amounts to financial upgradation. The applicants absorption in Delhi police in a higher pay scale cannot be counted financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme for three reasons; i) he joined the Delhi Police as Direct recruit in the rank of Sub Inspector in the scale of Rs.1640-2900/-; ii) low pay scale of Sub Inspector in BSF and higher pay scale in Delhi Police were revised subsequently so as to bring them at par with each other; and iii) Sub Inspector in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 in BSF was not in the existing hierarchy of Delhi Police whereas the Scheme provide for mobility in the existing hierarchy.
6. The respondents in their reply have reiterated their position as stated in the impugned orders.
7. We have heard Shri Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Amit Anand, learned counsel for the respondents. As seen from the impugned order, the reason given to reject the request of the applicants to consider and accord them the benefit of MACP Scheme is that as per the Points 4 to 6 contained in the DOPT OM No. 36043/1/97-Estt (D)/(Vol.IV) dated 18.07.2001 and PHQ Circular No. 13534-75/P.Br./PHQ dated 05.06.2008, if the appointment is made to the post in higher grades, then such appointments, whether by direct recruitment or by transfer or initially on deputation followed by absorption, will be treated as direct recruitment and the past service/promotion (which was in a different scale) will not be counted for the grant of ACP/MACP Scheme. Accordingly, as the service of the applicants rendered in the lower scale prior to the date of permanent absorption in Delhi Police has not been taken into account for the purpose of grant of ACP/MACP to them and they were held not entitled for grant of second and third MACP at the present stage. The aforesaid reason is contrary to the Apex Courts judgment in S.I Roop Lals case (supra). After the aforesaid judgment, the Respondents themselves have counted the service rendered by the Applicants in BSF for the purpose of seniority and based on the revised seniority they have also been granted further promotions. Again the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal has held clearly in the case of Antony Mathew (supra) that the absorption of the applicant therein in a higher pay scale cannot be counted towards financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme for three reasons; i) he joined the Delhi Police as Direct recruit in the rank of Sub Inspector in the scale of Rs.1640-2900/-; ii) low pay scale of Sub Inspector in BSF and higher pay scale in Delhi Police were revised subsequently so as to bring them at par with each other; and iii) Sub Inspector in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 in BSF was not in the existing hierarchy of Delhi Police whereas the Scheme provide for mobility in the existing hierarchy.
8. Accordingly, we allow this OA. We also quash and set aside the impugned Annexure A-1 letter dated 15.06.2010 and the Annexure A-2 circular dated 05.06.2008 based on which the said letter dated 15.06.2010 was issued. The respondents are, therefore, directed to consider the request of the applicants for grant of benefits under the MACP Scheme in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S.I Roop Lal (supra) and the Order of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Antony Mathew (supra). The Respondents shall pass necessary orders in this regard within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, under intimation to the Applicants. There shall be no order as to costs.
( Khushi Ram ) ( G. George Paracken ) Member (A) Member (J) SRD