Delhi High Court
D.D.A. vs Beena Chattree on 17 November, 2006
Author: M Mudgal
Bench: M Mudgal, J Singh
JUDGMENT
Mukul Mudgal, J.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against order dated 1.5.2006 passed by the Single Bench.
2. Briefly the facts are that the respondent was initially appointed on compassionate grounds on an ex-cadre post of Field Investigator with effect from 4.4.1989 in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300.
3. On implementation of the Vth Pay Commission report the respondent was given the corresponding revised pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000 with effect from 1.1.1996. The respondent filed a representation stating that the post on which she was appointed was an ex-cadre post and that there was no promotional avenue for the said post. A Committee was appointed by the Vice Chairman to look into the representation. The Committee proposed as under:
... the respondent may be considered for next higher pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 and placed in the Welfare Inspector cadre, however, as regards other issues like seniority vis-à-vis other Inspector, date of granting this pay scale was as well as designation may be considered by the Competent Authority.
4. The claim of the respondent that she be given pre-revised scale of Rs. 5500-9000 (Rs.1640-2900 pre-revised) in place of Rs. 1400-2300 was not accepted. She filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of the above claim. The learned single judge after examining all aspects of the matter, held as under:
11. It is evident that the authorities were in error in considering that the Petitioner had been given a higher pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 since that pay scale had been uniformly extended to all employees working in the grade of Rs. 1400-2300, upon its revision to Rs. 1640-2900, with effect from 1.1.1986 by virtue of an establishment order dated 1.1.2003.
12. It is therefore evident that the Respondent misdirected itself in concluding that the Petitioner had been granted a higher pay scale whereas in reality she was granted a scale that merely replaced the existing pay scale pursuant to the decision uniformly applied by the DDA to its employees.
13. In the light of the above discussion, the Petitioner's claim to be considered for appropriate fixation in the regular cadre of the DDA has to succeed. A direction is, therefore, issued to the DDA to consider the Petitioner's case afresh and determine as to the post which she was appointed when she joined the duties in 1989 and also fix inter se her seniority. The said order shall also consider her case for benefits of pay fixation as was granted to similarly situated employees but who granted the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 at the time when she joined the services, after its revision to Rs. 1640-2900 and subsequently revision to Rs. 5500-9000. Consequential order shall be issued within eight weeks from today and directly communicated to the Petitioner.
5. Taking into account inter alia the finding recorded by the learned single Judge in para-10 of the judgment that the question of petitioner being given a higher pay scale and therefore being disentitled to the benefit could never therefore have arisen because the subsequent revision or replacement of the existing pay scale from Rs. 1400-2300 to Rs. 1640-2900 merely resulted in the petitioner becoming entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000, which was in fact granted, we are of the opinion that contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the claim of the respondent for giving her the pre-revised scale of Rs. 5500-9000 (Rs.1640-2900 pre-revised) in place of Rs. 1400-2300 could not be acceded to, has no force and cannot be accepted by Rs. this Court. Accordingly we do not find it a fit case for interference under the Letters Patent Appeals jurisdiction.
6. We have also noted that the appellant was granted eight weeks time vide impugned judgment dated 1st May, 2006 to carry out the directions issued in paragraph 13 of the said judgment. Inspite of the fact that there was no interim order staying the impugned judgment, the DDA/appellant has chosen not to comply with the said directions. However, at the request of the learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. Mridul and with the consent of Mr. J.P. Sengh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, we grant the appellant further time up to 30th November, 2006, to carry out the directions given by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 1st May, 2006.
7. With the above direction, the appeal and the application for stay stand dismissed.
