Delhi High Court
R.K. Gaur vs The Government Of National ... on 8 February, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002 IIAD Delhi 645, 97 (2002) DLT 413
Author: S K Kaul
Bench: S K Kaul
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
1. Rule.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for the
parties, petition is taken up for final disposal.
3. The petitioner has contended that he has been
requesting the respondent to merge his post of Care
Taker in the Ministerial staff of the equivalent post
in the office of District & Sessions Judge and the
respondent had taken more than 20 years in passing the
routine orders under Rule 26(2) of the CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972 in as much a though the petitioner joined
the service as a Caretaker in the office of District
Judge on 31.3.1978, the relevant order has been passed
on 11.10.1999.
4. It is relevant to state that in view of
certain other proceedings initiated by the petitioner
the matter in issue had been referred to a Committee
of Judges. The Committee of Judges examined the
controversy in question and gave report on 21.3.2001.
The operative portion of the order reads as under:
"We questioned the Administration
Branch is there nay other person working who
could be described as senior to Sh. Gaur &
has already not been promoted. We have been
informed that in the scale of 4500-7000,
there is no such employee as on the date of
inclusion of Sh. Gaur i.e. on 30.6.99.
There is thus, no employee who is n the
scale of 4500-7000. Therefore, sh. Gaur gets
the position which he claims except that
those who had already been promoted to
higher scale shall be senior to him. Even
if the matter is considered form the point
of the matter is considered from the point
of view of 27.2.80 and the promotion which
have already been done are not to be un-done
even then the position of Sh. Gaur remains
the same. Thus, from whatever angle the
matter is considered sh. Gaur is entitled to
number one position in the scale of
Rs. 4500-7000. He is entitled to such
position on the basis of his own submissions
as well as on the basis of the contentions
of the department.
If the seniority is fixed in the
aforesaid manner Sh. Gaur is entitled to
deputation allowance till the date sh. Gaur
is included in the regular cadre for which
we are told that the cheques have already
been issued to him. Sh. Gaur, thus, gets the
seniority as well as duty allowance and also
the protection of the pay subject to FR & SR
Rules as claimed in Annexure `K'. Annexure
`O' also refers to the same demand which we
have considered. Accordingly we make the
advice.'
5. Mr. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner
has contended that petitioner has but been given full
benefits of the report in as much a she is entitled to
notional promotion when juniors were promoted in 1997.
6. Mr. Gambhir, learned counsel for the
respondents, however contended that the operative
portion of the order has to be read with certain
findings in the report of the Committee which are as
under:
"Sh. Gaur submitted that he is
entitled to seniority position as on 27.2.80
on the basis of the scale which Sh. Gaur was
drawing. One is entailed to seniority from
the date on is included in the regular
cadre of the department and not prior to
that. The inclusion of Sh. Gaur in the
regular Ministerial Cadre of the office of
the District & Sessions Judge has been made
in pursuance to the order of Sh. M.A. Khan,
the then District & Sessions Judge, Delhi
dated 31.5.2000 w.e.f. 30.6.99.
Consequently, Sh. Gaur is entitled to
seniority only form the said date on the
basis of the length in service, in the
Ex-Cadre post and the present post. Such a
course will not affect the seniority of the
persons who have already been promoted to
the senior post. If we accept the submission
of Sh. Gaur that the seniority, should be
assigned on the basis of position of the
employees as on 27.2.80, it would result in
undoing what has already been done. It
would affect the rights of persons who have
already been promoted in higher scale. This
would not be in consonance with the
maintenance of good and co-ordial relations
amongst employees. Similar approach has
been adopted to in paragraph 3, 4.4 when it
has been noticed that fixation of seniority
of an absorbee will not affect any regular
promotion to the next higher grade made
prior to the date of such absorption. It
means no person is to be reverted
back/lowered down on account of inclusion of
Sh. Gaur in the regular cadre."
7. Learned counsel thus contends that it is clear
that the Committee has held that petitioner is
entitled to seniority only form the said date on the
basis of length in service in the ex cadre post and
the present post. It was contended that in view of
these observations, the purport of the report of the
Committee is not to undo what has already been done
and the petitioner's claim for seniority on the basis
of the position of the employees as on 27.2.1980 has
been rejected. The report has been implemented in
toto.
8. I have considered the submissions of learned
counsel for the parties. A reading of report makes it
clear that the grant of the relief to the petitioner
was not to result in undoing what has been done or to
affect rights of the persons who had already been
promoted in the higher scale. This would not be in
consonance with maintenance of the good and cordial
relations amongst the employees. In view of these
observations final relief has been granted to the
petition. It is not disputed that except to the
extent the grievance made by learned counsel for the
petitioner now, the report has been implemented. I am
in agreement with the contentions advanced on behalf
of counsel for the respondent that the purpose of the
report is clear and the same has been implemented.
What is now sought by the petitioner would amount
disturbing the seniority of the persons and unsettling
what has already been done. In fact, said persons are
not eve parties to the present petition.
9. I see no reason to interfere under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.
10. Dismissed.
CM 9211/2001
11. Dismissed.
