Delhi High Court
Lallu Ram Asstt. Fitter vs The Chairman D.T.C. And Ors. on 20 April, 2006
Author: S R Bhat
Bench: S R Bhat
JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. Issue Rule. Mr. Behera, Advocate learned Counsel for respondents waives notice of Rule. With consent of counsel for parties, the matter was heard finally.
2. The petitioner as, during pendency of these proceedings, was promoted to the post of Fitter in some time March, 2006. He however, seeks that relief w.e.f. 1982.
3. The petitioner while working as Assistant Fitter in the respondent Corporation (hereafter referred to as 'DTC') was prosecuted. He stood trial of the criminal proceedings on allegations of having forged documents. During the pendency of the trial, the petitioner become eligible for promotion. The DTC, however, took the position that his case for promotion would be considered when the pending criminal proceedings were finally decided, by its letter dated 20.12.1982.
4. It is not disputed that the petitioner was eventually acquitted of the charges on 4th February, 2004 He, therefore, applied to the DTC, for promotion to the post of Fitter on 31.3.2004 By the impugned order dated 12.8.2004, the DTC stated that the promotion could not be granted as there was excess personnel in the category of Fitter. The said order reads as under:
Reference his application dated 31/3/2004 regarding promotion to the post of fitter, Sh. Lallu Ram, Asstt. Fitter B. No. 4823 Pay T. No. 5485 is hereby informed that P.L.D.(H.Qtr.) has intimated that the category of fitter is already excess as per norms therefore as and when there is vacant post of fitter your case will be placed before the D.P.C. accordingly.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record an order dated 22.3.2005 by which one Sh. Satya Dev who was identically situated and in fact stood trial along with the petitioner, after his acquittal, was promoted as Fitter on the basis of his eligibility as per the rules w.e.f. 16.7.1984. The relevant portion of that order dated 22.3.2005 reads as follows:
Taking into consideration the above orders, a review DPC has been constituted on 12.1.2005 and after perusal of the service record, he was found suitable for promotion to the post of fitter on the basis of earlier DPC held on 3.7.84 as his ACR for the year 1980 was not OK. Since, the persons junior to his were promoted w.e.f. 16.7.84, so he was also promoted as fitter w.e.f. 16.7.84 and give him benefit for the purpose of seniority and fixation of pay vide letter No. PLD-IV/(RandM)/Fitter/2005/207 dated 19.1.2005.
6. Mr. Behera, learned Counsel for respondents submitted that even though the petitioner was acquitted, the DTC cannot be directed to promote him and that the judgment in Jankiraman's case does not entitle such employees to full benefits of promotion from the date of eligibility. It was, therefore, claimed that back wages or arrears of full salary on the basis of promotion which might be given later cannot be insisted upon, as a matter of right. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (1993) 23 ATC 322.
7. The affidavit of the respondents as well as the other materials show that there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner was acquitted of the charges. Equally, the fact he stood trial along with Satya Dev for the same charges has not been denied or disputed. In such circumstances, once Satya Dev, who too was an Assistant Fitter at the time of his implication in the criminal proceedings was eventually promoted, the petitioner too became entitle to similar benefits. Satya Dev was granted promotion w.e.f. 16.7.1984 to the post of the Fitter. However, for purposes of seniority and fixation of pay, the relief was granted w.e.f. 19.1.2005.
8. In view of the above facts and the conclusions and in the absence of any explanation for the differential treatment of the petitioner, a direction is issued to the DTC to issue an appropriate order promoting the petitioner from the date he became eligible to the post of Fitter, if required, before 16.7.1984 and in any case, not later than 16.7.1984 and extend him treatment identical to what was granted to Satya Dev as per the order dated 22.3.2005 in accordance with rules applicable in that regard. The appropriate order shall be issued after considering the petitioner's case within a period of six weeks from today.
The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.
