Shri P.P. Garg And Shri Devendra ... vs New Delhi Municipal Council, ...
2003 Latest Caselaw 874 Del

JUDGMENT

Vijender Jain, J.

1. Rule.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners on the ground that petitioner No. 1 was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on 24.9.1987 and petitioner No. 2 was promoted on 10.2.1986 to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical & Mechanical) and both were posted at Auto Workshop of the respondent/NDMC. It is the case of the petitioners that NDMC Workshop Employees Association filed a CWP No. 1/90 in the Supreme Court of India for grant of Shiv Shankar scales and the said petition was decided on 17th March, 1993. In this petition, petitioners have prayed that their pay scales be fixed on the basis of Shiv Shankar Committee Report.

3. Mr. Amit Bansal, learnrned counsel for the respondent/NDMC has contended that the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical & Mechanical) in the NDMC was on the strength of Civil Engineering Department of the NDMC and, therefore, the petitioners were not entitled to the benefit of Shiv Shankar pay scales while working at the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical & Mechanical). It is the case of the respondent that petitioners knowingly and willingly accepted the promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical & Mechanical) covered under the pay scales of 5th Central Pay Commission fully aware that the said post falls in the Civil Engineering Department of the respondent and the same was not covered under Shiv Shankar pay scales. It was further contended that merely because the petitioners were posted to Auto Workshop that post would not be a post under Auto Workshop and that remains with the Civil Engineering Department. It was contended that the petitioners were posted in the Hot Mix Plant of NDMC which post falls under civil Engineering Department. It was further contended that Supreme Court did not grant Shiv Shankar pay scale to all categories of the employees of the Auto Workshop. Reliance was placed by the counsel for the respondent upon R.D. Gupta & Ors. Vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi Admn. & Ors. .

4. On the other hand, Mr. Shiv Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners were working in the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical & Mechanical) in the NDMC Auto Workshop. That fact has been admitted by the respondent in para 3 of the preliminary objection in the counter affidavit. It was contended by Mr. Dayal that the Assistant Engineers in the Electricity Wing of the NDMC are being paid according to Shiv Shankar pay scales. It was further contended that Auto Workshop of the NDMC formed part and parcel of the Electricity Wing of the NDMC and in this connection my attention was drawn to para 3 of the counter affidavit on merit filed by the respondents whereas respondent on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court has admitted that Auto Workshop forms part and parcel of the Electricity Wing of the NDMC. It was contended that Assistant Engineers (Electrical & Mechanical) of the Auto Workshop of the NDMC must be paid according to Shiv Shankar scales as has been paid to the Assistant Engineers in the Electricity Wing of the NDMC. Countering the arguments of the respondent that the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical & Mechanical) was on the Budget Book showing schedule of the establishment of the Civil Engineering Department, it was contended that even if the post is shown on the Civil Engineering Department, the fact that the petitioners were Electrical & Mechanical Engineers, they cannot be equated with the Civil engineers. It was contended that an Engineer who possesses a degree of Electrical or Mechanical Engineering is not qualified to work as a Civil Engineer.

5. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. In R.D. Gupta's case (supra) it was the Assistant Engineer (Civil) who raised grievances before Supreme Court that they were at par with Electrical Engineers. It was contended on behalf of the Civil Engineers that Civil Engineers by them constituted an integral part of the Electricity Wing and hence they cannot be discriminated in the matter of fixation of their scales of pay. What they were praying before the Court was that they should also be considered as Electrical Engineers. That contention of the Civil Engineers was turned down by the Supreme Court in R.D. Gupta's case (supra).

6. Therefore, R.D. Gupta's case, as a matter of fact, does not help the case of the respondent at all. In view of the clearcut finding of the Supreme Court in Writ Petition No. 1/90, where a similar contention was raised before the Supreme Court by the employees working in the Auto Workshop of the NDMC that they were part and parcel of the Electricity establishment, the Supreme court held that the employees of the Auto Workshop forms a part and parcel of the Electricity Wing of the NDMC. Although that petition was considering 18 categories of employees which included ministerial staff. From the letter of the respondent promoting the petitioners to the Auto workshop and the fact that the petitioners are Assistant Engineers (Electrical & Mechanical) there is no justification not to give the same pay scales as has been granted to other employees of the NDMC working in the Auto Workshop as Auto Workshop forms a part and parcel of the Electricity Wing of the NDMC. Without going into other submissions of the respondent, in view of the clear finding of the Supreme Court that Auto Workshop forms part and parcel of the Electricity Wing of the NDMC, a direction is issued to the respondents to give Shiv Shankar pay scales to the petitioners.

7. Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute.