Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Jagdish Chand Sharma vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 28 August, 1984
It was made clear in the order that the applicant would neither be called a DANIPS officer nor would be eligible to claim seniority in DANIPS, and would be considered for appointment to Grade-I of DANIPS by promotion in his own turn in due course. Sub-rules (2) and (4) of rule 7 of DANIPS Rules, 2003 provide that 50% of the posts in the entry grade shall be filled up by direct recruitment and the remaining 50% by promotion, and vacancies in the promotion quota shall be filled by selection from amongst officers holding the posts of Inspector in DANIPS with three years regular service in the grade. A meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was held on 21.9.2007 to consider the cases of eligible Inspectors of Police for their appointment by promotion to the entry grade of DANIPS against the vacancies pertaining to the year 2007. The committee after scrutiny of records of the officers in the eligibility list, recommended the applicant, amongst others, for appointment to the entry grade of DANIPS, and accordingly vide order dated 1.11.2007 he was appointed to the entry grade of DANIPS in the scale of Rs.6500-10500 on probation for a period of two years, subject to outcome of CWP No.4210/2007 in the matter of Jagdish Chand v Union of India & Another. Consequent on restructuring of the pay and grades of DANIPS w.e.f. 1.1.1996, Grade-II of the said Service is being operated in two scales of pay, namely. Rs.6500-10500 on initial appointment and Rs.8000-13500 on completion of four years approved service in Grade-II, subject to vigilance and integrity clearance. In Schedule-I to the Rules of 2003, following scales of pay in respect of entry grade are in vogue:
Direct Recruit Class Ii Engineering ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 2 May, 1990
7. The applicant has filed rejoinder to both the written statements. We may only make a mention of the rejoinder filed by the applicant to the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.1. It has inter alia been pleaded in the rejoinder that the benefit of non-functional grade has been extended to ex-cadre post of ACP (Communication), Delhi Police and consequently promotion of the applicant against the ex-cadre post cannot constitute a valid excuse for non-extension of similar benefit to him, and further that ad hoc promotion of the applicant continued uninterrupted and fructified in regular promotion subsequently and the benefit of entire service including ad hoc service deserves to be granted for the purpose of grant of benefit of non-functional selection grade in terms of the judgment of the Honble Supreme court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association v State of Maharashtra & Others [(1990) 2 SCC 715]. Insofar as, non availing of other remedies available to the applicant is concerned, it is stated that there is no remedy available to the applicant. It is further pleaded that the applicant is not seeking what has not been allowed to him in terms of his promotion order, i.e., seniority in DANIPS; he is only asking for the pay which is admissible after rendering four and eight years of service.
Selvaraj vs Lt. Governor Of Island, Port Blair And ... on 16 March, 1998
15. Coming to the last limb of the case, we may only make a mention of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Selvaraj v Lt. Governor of Island, Port Blair & Others [(1998) 4 SCC 291]. The question that came up for decision before the Honble Supreme Court was as to whether the petitioner in the said case would be entitled to draw salary attached to the post of Secretary (Scouts) during the time he actually worked on that post pursuant to order dated 28.1.1992, and if so, what would be his scale of pay. It is significant to mention that the employee in the said case was only called upon to look after duties of Secretary (Scouts). His pay was to be drawn against the post of Secretary (Scouts) under GFR 77. While mentioning that it may be true that the employee was not regularly appointed to the post of Secretary (Scouts) and that his regular posting was in the scale of Rs.1200-2040 and he was asked to look after the duties of Secretary, and that had this arrangement not been done, he would have to be transferred to the interior islands, the Honble Supreme Court still held that the fact remained that he had worked on the higher post, though temporarily and in an officiating capacity and, therefore, on the principle of quantum meruit, the respondent authorities ought to have paid him as per the emoluments available in the higher pay scale during the time he actually worked on the higher post, though in an officiating capacity and not as regular promotee. It is admitted position that the applicants are performing the duties of ACPs, and would be entitled to benefits, if not at par with Grade-I (DASS) officers appointed to ex-cadre posts of DANICS, then at least at par with their counterparts in DANIPS on ex-cadre posts. On the principle of quantum meruit also, we are of the view that the applicants are entitled to the non-functional grade of Rs.8000-13500.
Shri Nem Datt Bhardwaj And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 27 May, 1999
10. At the very outset, we may mention that even though, the learned counsel representing the parties are unanimous that the earlier litigation referred to in the reply filed on behalf of respondents would have no bearing upon the controversy involved in the present Application, we are, however, of the view that it may not be entirely correct. The earlier litigation pertained to out of turn promotion of Inspectors in Delhi Police. It appears that the plea raised by confirmed Inspectors in Delhi Police complaining about failure of the respondents to convene DPC for effecting promotion to the rank of ACP and adopting pick-and-choose policy to promote large number of Inspectors to the rank of ACP on ad hoc/out of turn basis, was accepted by the Tribunal in its order dated 27.5.1998 in OA No.528/1998 in the matter of Nem Datt Bhardwaj & Others v Union of India & Others. Orders of ad hoc promotion issued after 9.12.1995 up to 10.7.1998, which included out of turn promotion, were set aside. The aggrieved parties, i.e., those who had been given ad hoc promotion on the post of ACP, approached the Honble High Court of Delhi by way of CW No.4582/1999, which passed the following order on 1.12.1999:
Sqn. Ldr. K.V. Rao vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 4 August, 2004
Copy of the additional affidavit referred to above has been annexed with the Application as Annexure-7. It is the case of the applicant, not denied by the respondents, that he is discharging duties exactly on par and identical terms as is being done by regular cadre DANIPS officers. In fact, the case of the applicant is that he has been called upon to discharge more arduous and responsible duties than most of the regular DANIPS officers. The applicant has placed on records orders of his posting in addition to the particulars of rendition/discharge of duties as reflected in the citation at Annexure-8 (colly.). Members of DANICS as well as DANIPS were allowed the benefit of higher grade and selection grade on completion of four years and eight years of service respectively. The said benefits have been made applicable to members of DANICS first and then to members of DANIPS, vide different order/notification. The respondents have thus allowed the benefits of higher grade and scale to the Grade-I officers of DANICS as well as DASS. It may be clarified that employees of Grade-I (DASS) are promoted to DANICS, and it is the case of the applicants that Grade-I (DASS) employees who have been promoted to DANICS on ad hoc basis have been granted the relief asked for by them. Formation of service in DANICS is stated to be on same lines as DANIPS, the only difference being that whereas, employees of DANICS constitute civil service, DANIPS consists of employees of police service. Insofar as, however, the applicant is concerned, he has been denied the said benefits. He has also been denied the benefit of DANIPS Rules, 2003 available to him after completion of eight years of service as entry grade officer. Denial of the said benefit, the applicant states, is highly arbitrary, discriminatory and unsustainable in the eyes of law being contrary to the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
1