Mohan vs University Of Delhi
2007 Latest Caselaw 465 Del

JUDGMENT

Hima Kohli, J.

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner herein prays inter alia for directions to respondent No. 2 to revise/fix the pay scale of the petitioner as per the 5th Pay Commission Report, without being compelled to step down from the post of Sports Attendant to the post of Groundsman.

2. Briefly stated, facts relevant for disposing of the present petition are as follows:

The Indira Gandhi Institute of Physical Education and Sports Science (hereinafter referred to as the 'Institute'), respondent No. 2 herein, was established in August, 1987 and is a constituent college of the University of Delhi, respondent No. 1. In the year 1989, the petitioner applied to respondent No. 2. for the post of Sports Attendant and was appointed to the said post on the basis his experience and qualification, though the said post was unapproved at that time. Petitioner joined duties w.e.f. 15th February, 1989.

3. Thereafter, it was decided in the meeting of the Governing Body of the Institute, dated 12th February, 1993, that the respondent No. 1. be approached with regard to sanctioning of the posts of Class-IV employees, i.e. Sports Attendant and Groundsman. Accordingly, a meeting was held with a committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor of respondent No. 1. on 21st April, 1993 and in the said meeting, the revised norms of non-teaching Class-IV employees were laid down. The post of Sports Attendant was discussed but was not approved. The respondent No. 2 was informed of the said decision vide letter dated 20.8.1993, issued on behalf of respondent No. 1. The relevant extract of the minutes of the meeting held on 21.4.1993, are reproduced herein below:

The letter received from the Principal, Indira Gandhi Institute of Physical Education and Sports Sciences regarding re-examination of the norms of non- teaching staff in respect of the Institute together with the recommendations of the Committee made earlier regarding norms for Non-teaching Staff for the Institute were placed before the Committee.

The Principal explained to the members, entire position with regard to the existing staff appointed by the Institute with the approval of the Governing Body before the new norms now laid down by the Committee.

After discussion of the matter taking into account the overall position regarding the existing staff strength and the requirements, in view of the specialised nature of the College, the Committee revised the norms for Non- academic Class IV staff as follows:

 Daftri            - 1 as against 2 recommended earlier.
Peons             - 4 as against 5 recommended earlier.
Waterman           -1
Safai Karamcharis - 4
Chowkidars        - 4
(incl.Gate Men)
Mali              - 2
Groundsmen        - 7 (additional
                     (in the pay scale
                      of Rs. 750-940)
 

The Committee was not in favor of any change in the norms of other ministerial staff already recommended.
 

Pursuant to the above decision, the employees on the post of Sports Attendants fell surplus and they were informed by the Institute vide Office Order dated 21st May, 1993 that they could opt for working as Groundsman which had the same pay scale, benefits etc., so that there was no break in their service and all the employees could be absorbed by the Institute. It is relevant to note here that all the other employees working in the post of Sports Attendants opted for the post of Groundsmen. All of them were absorbed and their pay was fixed as per the revised pay scale of the 5th Pay Commission in the year 1994, itself. In reply to the letter issued by the Institute, the petitioner vide his letter dated 4th July, 1994, stated that since the post of Sports Attendant had been abolished, therefore he may be appointed as Training Attendant, Daftari, Head Mali or Peon, wherever there was a vacancy, or to be appointed at any post that the Institute found fit and proper, keeping in view his experience and qualifications. Accordingly, the Institute, having found the petitioner qualified for the job of Groundsman, informed him vide letter dated 4th August, 1994 of his appointment to the said post. Though, the petitioner continued to work at the said post till the year 2000, he, however, did not fill up the option form to be appointed as a Groundsmen. In the meantime, the 5th Pay Commission Report was implemented, and since the petitioner had not filled in his option form, as indicated above, his pay scale could not be revised by the Institute according to the 5th Pay Commission Report. It is this grievance of which the petitioner seeks redressal through this writ petition.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner had no technical expertise to work as a Groundsman, he never opted for the said post. It was submitted that while all other employees of the respondent No. 2. were getting their salary according to the revised pay scale of the 5th Pay Commission, only the petitioner was being deprived of the benefits of such revised pay scale. Learned Counsel further submitted that the petitioner had made a number of representations to the respondent No. 2. in this regard, but his request was turned down on the ground that he had not filled up his option form. It was canvassed that the petitioner was not only appointed, but even confirmed to the post of Sports Attendant. Therefore, he could not be forced to work as a Groundsman for which post, he did not have any experience, and he could not be deprived of the benefits of the 5th Pay Commission, only because of his refusal to work on the said post.

5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents contended that though, the petitioner was initially appointed as a Sports Attendant, the same was an unapproved post. On request of the Institute, a meeting was held with a committee constituted under the directions of Vice-Chancellor of the respondent No. 1 on 21st April, 1993, in which the post of Sports Attendant was discussed but not approved. It was submitted that only thereafter, with the well-meaning intention of absorbing all the persons who were already working as Sports Attendant, without causing them any break in service etc., that they were given an option to work as Groundsmen vide office order dated 21st May, 1993. Reliance was also placed on the letter dated 4th July, 1994, addressed by the petitioner to the Institute whereby he had himself stated that he was willing to be appointed as Training Attendant, Daftari, Head Mali or Peon, wherever there a vacancy, or that he may be appointed at any post that the Institute found fit and proper, keeping in view his experience and qualifications. Pursuant to this, the petitioner was appointed as a Groundsman. Counsel for respondent further submitted that, considering the fact that except for the change in the nomenclature of the post, the pay scales, perquisites and other benefits for the post of Sports Attendant and that of Groundsman are identical. Hence there was no reason for the petitioner to be aggrieved by the act of the Institute in appointing him as a Groundsman. Learned Counsel for the Institute submitted that the claim of the petitioner that he had no experience of working as a Groundsman is incorrect and contrary to the record. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the bio-data of the petitioner which he had submitted along with his application wherein it was mentioned that he had experience of 20 months as a Groundsman.

6. It was also submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the pay scale of the petitioner was not revised as per the 5th Pay Scale only because the petitioner had not complied with the requisite formality of filling up the option form. Thus, the petitioner had only himself to blame for the current impasse and the respondents cannot be faulted on the said count. In rejoinder, it was contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the appointment of Class-IV employees is within the domain of the Institute and respondent No. 1 had no role to play in the same.

7. I have heard the counsels for the parties and have carefully perused the documents placed on record. The grievance of the petitioner is two fold, firstly that his pay has not been fixed/revised as per 5th Pay Commission Report and secondly, that he should not have been appointed at the post of Groundsman, but ought to have been allowed to continue at the post of Sports Attendant.

8. The record reveals that admittedly in the meeting dated 21st April, 1993, the post of Sports Attendant was not approved by the respondent No. 1. It is also admitted that in response to the office order dated 21st May, 1993 issued by the Institute, the petitioner by his letter dated 4th July, himself requested the respondent No. 1. to appoint him as Training Attendant, Daftari, Head Mali or Peon, wherever there was a vacancy, or to be appointed at any post that the Institute found fit and proper, keeping in view his qualifications and experience. It was only pursuant to this representation made by the petitioner, and keeping in mind his experience as a Groundsman for 20 months, that the respondent No. 2. appointed the petitioner to the said post. It is also an admitted position that except for change in the nomenclature of the post o'there is no difference whatsoever, in the pay scale, perquisites or other benefits drawn by the Sports Attendant and the Groundsman. The Institute had also assured the petitioner of continuity in service in case he opted for the post of Groundsman.

9. No explanation has been offered, much less sound justification given by the petitioner to show as to why did he not raise any grievance against his appointment as a Groundsman from the year 1994 to the year 2000, when this petition was filed. The only reason offered by him was that since the 5th Pay Commission Report came into force only in or about the year 2000, and his pay scale was not revised as per the said Report merely on the ground that he had not filled in the option form wherein he had to specifically state that he opted to work as a Groundsman, that he filed the present writ petition. There is no force in this argument of the petitioner, as he has failed to give any convincing reason as to why did he not have any issues in working as a Groundsman till the year 2000 and why is it that after the year 2000 he has started having problem not only with the non-revision of pay scale but also with the designation of 'Groundsman' and the nature of work being performed by him. The Institute is justified in taking a stand that it was unable to raise the pay scale of the petitioner as per the said Report, as the post of a Sports Attendant, does not even exist. Even in reply to the representations of the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 had clearly stated that his pay scale would be revised as soon as he filled up his option form. In fact, as noticed above, pursuant to the Office Order dated 21st May, 1993, issued by the Institute, all the employees working in the post of Sports Attendant opted for the post of Groundsman and then pay was fixed as per the revised pay scale of the 5th Pay Commission in the year 1994 itself. Thus no mala fides can be attributed to the respondents.

10. The contention raised by the petitioner to the effect that respondent No. 2 was not controlled by respondent No. 1 so far as creation of posts were concerned, and that appointments to various posts were within the exclusive domain of respondent No. 2, was raised for the first time during the course of arguments and the said plea has not been taken in the petition. It is therefore neither proper, nor justified to permit the petitioner to try and improve upon his case and take a new ground at such a belated stage.

11. The petitioner himself having failed to fill up the option form as called upon by the respondent, his pay scales could not have been revised according to the 5th Pay Commission report. The inordinate delay, if any, that the petitioner claims as occurred, can only be attributed to the petitioner himself and none else as respondents had way back in the year 1993, called upon the petitioner to take necessary steps for filling up the option form, which would have automatically entitled him for benefit of the revised pay scales under the 5th Pay Commission. This Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. The petition, therefore, stands dismissed.

12. There are no orders as to costs.