Kewal Krishan vs Lalit Kala Akadami & Others
1998 Latest Caselaw 1048 Del

ORDER

Vijender Jain, J.

1. In view of the fact that the petitioner has retired, I do not want to go into various issues regarding the applicability of 1983 rules with amendment or herwise.

2. This writ petition can be disposed of on the limited point in view of the order dated 3rd July 1997 passed by acting Secretary of the respondent. The said order is as follows :-

LALIT KALA AKADEMI

OFFICE ORDER PART-II No.137 Dated 3.7.1997

Consequent upon the appointment of Shri D.S. Sethi as D.S.(Admn.) Shri Kewal Krishan, D.S.(Admn.) adhoc in the grade of Rs.3000- 4500/- is hereby reverted to his regular grade of Accounts Officer (Rs.2000-3200/-) and posted as Assistant Secretary w.e.f. 3-7-97 (F/N).

Sd/-

(A.S. BOMRAH)

Acting Secretary

3. It is the admitted case of the parties that from 22.12.1987 till 27.6.1990, the petitioner was working as Accounts Officer in the regular grade of Rs.2000-3200/-. The petitioner thereafter was performing the duties of Programme Officer from 28.6.1990 to 28.12.1993. From 29.12.1993 to 28.6.1994, the petitioner was appointed as Trinnale officer in the grade of Rs.3000-4500/-. From 29.6.1994 till 24.6.1997, the petitioner worked as Deputy Secretary (Admn) in the same grade of Rs.3000-4500/-.

4. There is no dispute to this proposition of fact accept according to the respondent the appointment of the respondent as Programme Officer as well as Trinnale Officer was ad hoc. The whole case of the respondent is based on the assumption that the petitioner was not entitled to be appointed as a Deputy Secretary on the regular basis in the year 1994 when the petitioner was appointed Deputy Secretary (Admn) on 29.6.1994. If that was the case then the order of reversion which reverted the petitioner to the grade of accounts officer i.e. Rs.2000-3200/-, which the petitioner was getting in the year 1987 till 1990 smacks of vindictiveness. The impugned order dated 23.7.1997 has not taken into consideration that while working as Programme Officer in the grade of Rs.2000-3200/- and as Trinnale Officer in the grade of Rs.3000-4500/- no complaint against the petitioner relating to his service was ever brought to the notice of the respondent. No action whatsoever has been taken by the respondent in that period. The work of the petitioner was satisfactory. No material is on record to show that the appointment either as a Programme Officer or Trinnale Officer was bad in law. Making an order reverting the petitioner two steps down is absolutely without any basis, unreasonable, arbitrary and uncalled for. Even if the petitioner was not appointed in terms of recruitment rules as Deputy Secretary (Admn) as alleged by the respondent, his pay and grade ought to have been protected by the respondent which has not been done in this case.

5. As I have already stated that in view of the fact that the petitioner has retired from service in August, 1997, I need not go into the controversy whether the appointment of the petitioner was in accordance with the rule or any relaxation of the rule as has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. For the disposal of the writ petition, it is suffice to say that the order of reversion is bad and therefore, the same is quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to the arrears of the salary up to the date of retirement in the grade of Rs.3000-4500/- as well as the pensionary and retiral benefits on the same basis. Let the arrears of pay be paid within a period of six weeks.

6. Petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.