Shri K.R. Malhotra And Others vs Delhi Vidyut Board And Another
2001 Latest Caselaw 1100 Del

ORDER

Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. The Petitioner was initially appointed as a Junior Clerk in the Respondents/DVB. He is presently in Class-I service as a Private Secretary. His contention is that in conformity with the Report of the DESU Wage Revision Committee (Also known as Justice J.D. Jain Committee), once a promotee officer (such as the Petitioner) enters into Class-I service in his own right or in the time bound promotional scale, he should be dealt at par with the direct recruits in that grade for the purposes of all benefits of next promotional scale. It is his grievance that this recommendation is not being implemented by the Respondents.

2. Mr. V.K. Shali, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents has submitted that a perusal of the Office Order dated 23.7.1997 would make it evident that the recommendations of the Jain Committee were not accepted in toto. The relevant Office Order is reads as follows:

"4. The benefit of time-bound promotional scale shall be given to all the employee of DVB placed in identical scales whether in the ministerial/subordinate cadre or in the group 'A' scale provided that the base level in each case shall be induction by direct recruitment and not by promotion as such."

3. Mr. Shali's contention is that the legal propriety of this Office Order has not even been assailed in the present writ petition. He argues that the Office Order extracted above is salutary inasmuch as direct recruits comprise and intelligent differentia and are in a separate compartment from promotees. Promotees have already available the benefits of several promotions; in the case of the Petitioner he has been promoted thrice already. It was, therefore, correctly and justifiably considered by the Respondents that only direct recruits should be given time bound promotions to ward off the deleterious effects of stagnation.

4. The Respondents have acted strictly in accordance with the Office Order dated 23.7.1997. Even if I were to overlook the fact that vires of this Office Order have not been challenged, on the material presently available on the record I do not find it to be contrary to law or having the effect of causing injustice amongst the employees including the Petitioner.

5. Accordingly the petition is without merit and is dismissed.