Shri Baldev Ram S/O Late Sh. Chauti ... vs Delhi Development Authority ...
2003 Latest Caselaw 1240 Del

JUDGMENT

Vijender Jain, J.

1. Rule.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by non-grant of selection grade from February, 1998 when the petitioner was appointed to the post of Director (Horticulture) in the DDA. It is the case of the petitioner that he fulfillled the criteria for grant of non-functional selection grade since February 1998, in terms of office order based on Resolution No. 3 dated 19.3.1992 of the respondent. Mr. Kapoor has contended that the respondent had granted the selection grade to the petitioner from 1.2.2001. It is the case of the petitioner that even DPC which was convened for considering the case of petitioner for selection grade in August 2000 also recommended the grant of selection grade to the petitioner.

3. On the other hand Mr. Anil Sapra counsel for the respondent has contended that when the petitioner was working as Dy. Director (Horticulture) following irregularities were found.

"(a) Two works of nameplate of trees were got executed through work orders instead of tendeRs.

(b) Due to wrong measurement of work (writing of name plates) over payment of Rs. 15, 691/- took place in work order No. 34 which was received after Chief Technical Examiners' inspection report."

4. It was contended before me by counsel for the respondent that the advice of the Chief Vigilance Commission was sought to initiate proceedings against the petitioner. The Chief Vigilance Commission advised to initiate minor penalty proceedings against the petitioner. A minor penalty charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 6.9.2000. The petitioner was asked to tender his representation on the charges framed against him. After examining the case, Vice Chairman of the DDA imposed penalty of censure as per the instructions of Government of India laid down in the CCS (CCA) Conduct Rules. Mr. Sapra also contended that another person S.K. Bhatt who was senior to the petitioner had filed a writ petition challenging the departmental proceeding and on account of the pendency of the said writ petition also the selection grade was not given to the petitioner.

5. I have given my careful considerations to the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties. I do not find force in the argument of counsel for the respondent that selection grade could have been denied to the petitioner for an incident which pertains to 1991 and even if the penalty of censure is taken into consideration that cannot be a ground to deny the selection grade to the petitioner who had become Director in 1998. The penalty pertains to the period when the petitioner was Dy. Director in the year 1991. Non-grant of selection grade by the respondent in spite of the recommendation of the DPC which was convened in 2000 was also contrary to the rules for grant of selection grade to the respondent itself. The plea of the respondent that in view of pendency of the writ petition which was filed by S.K.Bhat who was senior to the petitioner, selection grade was not granted to the petitioner is also of no consequence as there was no stay order granted by the Court. In my considered view, non-grant of selection grade for the period when the petitioner was admittedly officiating as Director (Horticulture) from February 1998 was on frivolous ground.

6. A direction is issued to the respondent to grant selection grade from February 1998 till 31.1.2001 to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks.

7. Petition stands disposed of.