Delhi High Court
V.K. Mangla vs Union Of India And Another on 21 August, 2008
Author: Madan B. Lokur
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
+ Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13156 of 2005
Judgment reserved on: August 8, 2008
% Judgment delivered on: August 21, 2008
V.K. Mangla
Assistant Library & Information Officer
Ministry of Defence
Library, 129E, South Block
New Delhi ...Petitioner
Through Ms. Madhu Tewatia with Ms. Sidhi
Arora, Advocates
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Secretary
Ministry of Defence
South Block, New Delhi
2. The JS (T) and CAO
Ministry of Defence
Library, South Block
New Delhi ...Respondent
Through Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
WP (C) No.13156/2005 Page 1 of 9
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? Yes
MADAN B. LOKUR, J.
The sole issue before us is whether the Petitioner, Mr.
Mangla, was entitled to a second financial upgradation under the
Assured Career Progression Scheme (the ACP Scheme) in the pay scale
of Rs.10000-15200 with effect from 9th August, 1999? We are in
agreement with the view of the Central Administrative Tribunal that the
answer to this must be in the negative.
2. At the relevant time, Mr. Mangla was working with the
Respondents as Librarian Grade-II and was in the pay scale of Rs.5000-
8000 as per the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission.
3. On 9th August, 1999 the Respondents floated the ACP
Scheme, on the basis of which Mr. Mangla was (erroneously) given his
first financial upgradation in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500. This was
by an order dated 2nd May, 2001. However, that order was subsequently
replaced by another order dated 25th February, 2002 whereby Mr.
Mangla was granted his first financial upgradation in the pay scale of
Rs.5500-9000 and a second financial upgradation in the pay scale of
Rs.6500-10500. Both the financial upgradations were with effect from
9th August, 1999. It appears that the order dated 25th February, 2002 was
occasioned by a clarification issued by the Department of Personnel &
Training.
4. On 3rd January, 2003 the pay scale of Mr. Mangla was
revised from Rs.5000-8000 to Rs.5500-9000. Consequently, the first
financial upgradation granted to Mr. Mangla was revised (from
Rs.5500-8000) and he was placed in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500
with effect from 9th August, 1999. According to Mr. Mangla, the further
consequence of this was that he should have automatically been granted
his second financial upgradation in the pay scale Rs10000-15200 with
effect from 9th August, 1999 but this was not done by the Respondents.
Feeling aggrieved by this, Mr. Mangla made a representation to the
Respondents, but the representation was rejected. According to Mr.
Mangla, matters were made worse by the Respondents, who later
granted him a second financial upgradation in the pay scale of
Rs.10000-15200 but with effect from 5th March, 2004.
5. At this stage, it may be noted that Mr. Mangla was promoted
to the post of Assistant Library and Information Officer with effect from
6th May, 2003 in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500. The promotion post is
a Group 'B' post and the next higher pay scale is Rs.10000-15200 which
is applicable to a Group 'A' post.
6. According to the Respondents, if Mr. Mangla were to be
automatically granted the second financial upgradation in the pay scale
of Rs.10000-15200 as claimed, he would have been entitled to a pay
scale applicable to a Group 'A' post and that was not permissible
without a recommendation from the Screening Committee. The
recommendation of the earlier Screening Committee which approved the
second financial upgradation in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 in 2001
was no longer valid since that recommendation pertained to a financial
upgradation in a Group 'B' post whereas now the second financial
upgradation in the pay scale of Rs.10000-15200 would be with
reference to a Group 'A' post. Moreover, the composition of the two
screening committees is different in as much as in respect of a Group
'B' post the Screening Committee is chaired by an Additional Secretary
to the Government of India while in the case of a Group 'A' post, the
Screening Committee is chaired by a Secretary to the Government of
India.
7. The Respondents say that under these circumstances, the
case of Mr. Mangla was considered by a Screening Committee chaired
by the Defence Secretary on 29th September, 2003 but it did not find him
fit for the grant of a second financial upgradation. His case was again
considered by the Screening Committee on 11th March, 2004 and this
time he was found fit for the grant of a second financial upgradation in
the pay scale of Rs.10000-15200 and that was, therefore, given to him
with effect from 5th March, 2004.
8. As mentioned above, the grievance of Mr. Mangla is rather
limited and it is that the second financial upgradation in the pay scale of
Rs.10000-15200 should also be with effect from 9th August, 1999 and
not with effect from 5th March, 2004. It is with this grievance that Mr.
Mangla filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative
Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
being OA No.1763 of 2004. However, the Tribunal did not agree with
Mr. Mangla and rejected his Original Application by its order dated 9 th
February, 2005 which is impugned in this writ petition.
9. It must be appreciated that when the second financial
upgradation was originally granted to Mr. Mangla on 25th February,
2002 he was in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000. It was with reference to
this pay scale that he was given a first financial upgradation in the pay
scale of Rs.5500-9000 and a second financial upgradation in the pay
scale of Rs.6500-10500. Thereafter, there was an upward revision in his
pay scale from Rs.5000-8000 to Rs.5500-9000. Therefore, his first
financial upgradation was modified to the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500
with effect from 9th August, 1999. Mr. Mangla has no grievance in this
regard and upto this point.
10. The rub lies in the second financial upgradation due to Mr.
Mangla in the pay scale of Rs.10000-15200 which, as already stated
above, pertains to a Group 'A' post.
11. The Screening Committee for a Group 'A' pay scale is
required to be headed by a Secretary to the Government of India.
Consequently, for the grant of a second financial upgradation the
recommendation earlier made by the Screening Committee (for a Group
'B' post) headed by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India
became redundant or irrelevant.
12. Due to the change in circumstances, the case of Mr. Mangla
was now required to be considered by a Screening Committee headed by
the Secretary to the Government of India. This Screening Committee
considered his case (on 29th September, 2003) for the grant of a second
financial upgradation in the pay scale of Rs.10000-15200 but found him
not yet fit. His case was again considered by the Screening Committee
on 11th March, 2004 when it found him fit for the grant of a second
financial upgradation and recommended accordingly.
13. The Tribunal has considered all these facts and has come to
the conclusion that, in the changed circumstances, there is no error
committed by the Respondents in referring Mr. Mangla's case to the
Screening Committee headed by a Secretary to the Government of India.
We also do not find any error in this regard. The initial decision taken
by the Respondents to grant a second financial upgradation to Mr.
Mangla pertained to a Group 'B' post in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500
and the Screening Committee was then chaired by an Additional
Secretary to the Government of India. However, in the changed
circumstances, the second financial upgradation due to Mr. Mangla fell
in the pay scale of Rs.10000-15200 which is a Group 'A' post and
which required the Screening Committee to be headed by a Secretary to
the Government of India. The case of Mr. Mangla was overtaken by
subsequent events and the quantitative change brought about required a
qualitative change as well. In our opinion, no fault can be found in the
decision taken by the Respondents.
14. Learned counsel for Mr. Mangla contended that the denial of
a second financial upgradation by the Screening Committee which met
on 29th September, 2003 was incorrect. We cannot accept this
submission. First of all, his case was considered by a duly constituted
Screening Committee and it is not possible for us to substitute our view
for that of the Committee. Secondly, we find that the Tribunal had
looked into the records and found that there was no error in the decision
taken by the Screening Committee. To allay any doubts that Mr.
Mangla may have, we too called for the records and after perusing them
we find that in the consideration that took place on 29th September, 2003
the Annual Confidential Reports of Mr. Mangla for the years 1996-97 to
2000-2001 were taken into consideration and he was found not yet fit
for the grant of a second financial upgradation. When the Screening
Committee again met on 11th March, 2004 it considered the Annual
Confidential Reports of Mr. Mangla for the years 1998-99 to 2002-2003
and found him fit for the grant of a second financial upgradation. It is
settled law that we cannot sit in appeal over the view taken by the
Screening Committee and in any case we do not find any error in the
view taken by that Committee.
15. In our opinion, there is no merit in the writ petition. It is
dismissed. No costs.
MADAN B. LOKUR, J
August 21, 2008 J.R. MIDHA, J
ncg
Certified that the corrected
copy of the judgment has
been transmitted in the main
Server.
