On 6th Aug 2020, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Rama Nand & Ors v. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & anr comprising of three-Judge Bench Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Ajay Rastogi, and Justice Aniruddha Bose stated that the Assured Career Progressive issued by Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India objective is to deal with the problem of genuine stagnation and hardship faced by the employees due to lack of adequate promotional avenues and held that the appellant cannot get the benefits of the ACP scheme.
Factual Background
The appellants were all working as Telephone Operators with the Delhi Fire Service (“DFS”). On account of the reorganization of the wireless communication system, ninety-six posts of Radio Telephone Operators were sought to be created in terms of a letter. Six Radio Operators were already operating as such, while twenty-seven Telephone Operators, in the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 were sought to be deployed as Radio Telephone Operators (“RTOs”) on a higher pay scale. The reorganization scheme was approved by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
The Telephone Operators had to go through a training and to be deployed as RTOs, a further condition was imposed of 5 years regular service, though it is alleged by the appellants that the same was not part of the letter. An important development took place on 9.8.1999 whereby the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India issued an Office Memorandum introducing an Assured Career Progression (“ACP”) Scheme, by which a decision was taken to grant two financial upgradations after completion of 12 and 24 years of regular service respectively. It is the case of the appellants that they were entitled to get their first financial up-gradation as on 9.8.1999 or on completion of 12 years of service in the DFS as Telephone Operators/RTOs, but that the same was denied to the appellants since the respondents treated their conversion of the aforesaid posts as a promotion.
Controversy
The limited controversy which arises for adjudication in the present case is whether the deployment of the appellants as RTOs would amount to a promotion or whether it was a mere reorganization and the appellants were entitled to the ACP separately in terms of the ACP Scheme.
CAT-principal Bench
- Original Application- 1 (1995)
The first Application was before the Central Administrative Tribunal (“CAT”), Principal Bench, New Delhi, and CAT succeeded granting them the pay scale of RTOs, i.e., Rs.380- 560 on the principle of “equal pay for equal work”.
- Original Application- 2 (2003)
The Second Application was filed in May 2003 before the CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi seeking relief for the first financial up-gradation in terms of the ACP Scheme.
The Tribunal opined that promotion and merger of cadres operated in different spheres and the requirement to be categorized as ‘promotion’ is that it must specify certain basic qualifications. On the other hand, the conversion of the posts was in the exercise of the powers of the Government in the given exigencies. Hence, what was granted to the appellants was not a promotion and the Tribunal consequently opined that the appellants were entitled to the benefits of the ACP Scheme.
Delhi High Court
The order by the CAT was assailed by the respondents before the Delhi High Court. The High Court called, passed the impugned judgment allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents. The gravamen of the reasoning of the High Court is that the conversion of posts of Telephone Operators to RTOs was with a condition of completion of 5 years of regular service, with the benefit of the higher pay scale from Rs. 260-400 to Rs. 380-560 and consequently, was liable to be treated as promotion, thus disentitling the appellants to the benefits of the ACP Scheme.
Supreme Court
Supreme Court after examining the Office Memorandum bringing forth the ACP Scheme, stated that it is apparent that the same was a consequence of the Fifth Central Pay Commission Report recommending such a Scheme for civilian employees, and was to be viewed as a safety net to deal with the problem of genuine stagnation and hardship faced by the employees due to lack of adequate promotional avenues. The moot point, thus, which arises for consideration is whether the benefits accruing to the appellants as a consequence of the reorganization scheme of wireless and communication systems could be said to give them the benefit of promotion and whether they were still entitled to a financial up-gradation on account of the ACP Scheme.
We have examined the aforesaid contention and we are of the view that the benefits of the ACP Scheme cannot be held applicable to the appellants and consequently the High Court was right in interfering with the order of the CAT.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
