Dr. Y.C. Verma vs M.C.D. And Ors.
2003 Latest Caselaw 5 Del

JUDGMENT

S.K. Mahajan, J.

1. RULE.

2. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and disposed of by this order.

3. The petitioner was appointed as Civil Assistant Surgeon Grade-II with the respondent in March, 1958. In 1975, he was promoted to the post of resident Medical Superintendent and with effect form 11th August, 1986 he was promoted to the post of Deputy Health Officer in the pay-scale of Rs.3,700 - 5,000 and up to 16th May, 1989 he was posted in the Maternal and Child Welfare Department of the respondent - Corporation. From 17.5.989 till 31.1.1991 he was posted as Deputy Health Officer (Malaria Department). On 31.1.1991, petitioner attained the age of superannuation, however, before he could be relieved from service, a charge-sheet was served upon him in the afternoon of 31.1.1991. There is no dispute between the parties that charges were finally dropped and no action was taken against the petitioner on the basis of this charge sheet.

4. In the meantime, recommendation was made by the Ministry of Health for increasing the pay-scale of Super time Grade II, in which post the petitioner was working at the time of retirement, to non-functional selection grade of Rs.4500-5700 w.e.f. 11.12.1989. The respondent - Corporation implemented the recommendations of the Ministry of Health and increased the pay-scale of super-time Grade-II to Non-functional Selection Grad of Rs.4,500 - 5,700 w.e.f. 11.12.1989. An office order was issued on 4.4.1991 stating, inter alia, that the Chief Secretary of the Delhi Administration had approved the placement of super-time Grade-II officers in the pay-scale of Rs.3,700 - 5,000 to the Non-functional Selection Grade of Rs.4,500 - 5,700. Though, the officers junior to the petitioner were given the Non-functional Selection Grade of Rs.4,500 - 5,700 (Pre-revised) on ad-hoc basis, however, the same was denied to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, applied to the respondents that in view of the office order dated 4.4.1991, the petitioner was also entitled to the Non-functional Selection Grade of Rs.4,500 - 5,700 and his terminal benefits including the gratuity, pension, leave encashment, etc. were to be computed on the basis of that scale. No response having been received from the respondents on the representation of the petitioner and the Non-functional Selection Grade of Rs.4,500 - 5,700 having not been granted to the petitioner, the present writ petition was filed by the petitioner for a direction to be given to the respondents to grant the Non-functional Selection Grade of Rs.4,500 - 5,700 w.e.f. 11.12.1989 and to pay to the petitioner all the arrears specially when juniors to the petitioner had been granted the said Non-functional Selection Grade. Petitioner also prayed for revising his pension on the basis of this Non-functional Selection Grade w.e.f. 1.2.1991 and to pay to him the arrears of pension. Certain other benefits to which the petitioner might be found entitled on the basis of this Non-functional Selection Grade of Rs.4,500 - 5,700 have also been claimed in the writ petition.

5. In the counter affidavit, the only plea taken by the respondent for non-granting this grade to the petitioner is that the name of the petitioner was not included in the office order dated 4.4.1991 as he was involved in a case of major penalty and had also retired from Municipal Service from 31.1.1991. There is no other reason given in the counter affidavit as to why the petitioner would not be entitled to the grant of Non-functional Selection Grade of Rs.4,500 - 5,700 when even his juniors were granted this grade w.e.f. 11.12.1989.

6. Except for reiterating what has been stated in the counter affidavit that the name of the petitioner was not included in the office order dated 4.4.1991, because he was involved in a major penalty case and was thus not entitled to the Non-functional Selection Grade of Rs.4,500 -5,700, no further argument has been advanced by learned counsel for the respondent in support of his case.

7. It is not denied by the respondent that had the charge-sheet for major penalty not been issued to the petitioner on 31.1.1991, the petitioner would have been entitled to grant of this grade w.e.f. 11.12.1989 as his juniors had been given the said grade. It is also not denied that the charge-sheet issued by the petitioner was ultimately dropped and no disciplinary action was taken against the petitioner nor any proceedings against him on the basis of the said charge-sheet were pending. In view of the fact that the charge-sheet against the petitioner had been dropped and no disciplinary action had been taken against him, I do not see any reason as to why the petitioner was not entitled to the Non-functional Selection Grade of Rs.4,500 - 5,700 w.e.f. 11.12.1989 till the date of his retirement and as to why his pension and other retiral benefits be not computed on the basis of this Non-functional Selection Grade of Rs.4,500 - 5,700. After the chargesheet was dropped, the petitioner became entitled to the said grade and all other benefits accruing there from. I, accordingly, allow this petition and direct the respondent to grant the Non-functional Selection Grade of Rs.4,500 - 5,700 to the petitioner w.e.f. 11.12.1989 and grant all benefits to which he may be entitled from the said date till 31.1.1991 when he retired from services. I also direct the respondent to revise his pension and other retiral benefits on the basis of the pay-scale of Rs.4,500 - 5,700 to which he was entitled at the time of his retirement. The respondent is directed to pay the entire arrears payable to the petitioner on the basis of said Non-functional Selection Grade within two months from the date of this order. Petitioner will also be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the arrears payable to him. On the facts of this case, however, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.