K.C. Tanwar & Ors. vs Uoi & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 4143 Del

R-24
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                       Date of Decision: 13th October, 2009

+                       W.P.(C) No.1086/1993

       K.C.TANWAR & ORS.                        ..... Petitioners
                Through: Nemo

                             versus

       UOI & ORS.                           ..... Respondents

                 Through:    Ms. Barkha Babbar, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral)

1. A very short issue arises for consideration in the

writ petition, but for the reason that it has taken this Court 16

years to finally dispose of the petition, we propose to dispose

of the petition not on account of the issue raised but on

account of the equities, which this Court feels, have set in.

2. It may be noted at the outset that pursuant to

orders issued in the month of October 1990, but served upon

the petitioners somewhere in the month of November 1991,

recoveries in sums ranging between Rs.4,000/- to Rs.21,000/-

were sought to be effected from the salaries which were being

paid to the petitioners.

3. Petitioners had a grievance against the recoveries

effected and filed the instant petition praying that the orders

passed by the respondents directing recoveries to be made

from the salary of the petitioners be quashed.

4. On 10.9.1993, interim stay was granted in favour of

the petitioners directing that henceforth no recovery by way of

deduction be made from the monthly salary paid to the

petitioners. On 2.3.1995 'Rule' was issued in the writ petition

and the interim order dated 10.9.1993 was confirmed.

5. The petitioners joined service under CRPF on

different dates in the years 1967 till 1969. All petitioners have

since retired from service.

6. Considering the petty amounts involved and the

fact that the petitioners have since retired from service as also

the fact that unfortunately, due to docket explosion, the writ

petition has remained pending in the record room of this Court

for 16 years, we propose to make absolute the 'Rule' by

directing that no recoveries be made from the pensions which

are now being paid to the petitioners. We reiterate once again

that our reason for so directing is principally the pettiness of

the sums involved as also the fact that the petitioners have

since retired from service and are drawing pension.

7. We may briefly note the facts on which petitioners

seek relief as prayed for.

8. On different dates in the years 1967 till 1969,

petitioners were appointed as Stenographers Grade III under

CRPF. In the year 1977, as per the petitioners, 23 posts of

Stenographers were upgraded in the junior scale of

Stenographer Grade II. As per the respondents the number of

posts were 17. To fill up the posts which were created in the

grade of Stenographer Grade II, administrative action was

taken. Litigation ensued in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

Matter was litigated till the Supreme Court. The ultimate

position which emerged as a result of the litigation was the

entitlement of the petitioners to be considered for promotion

with back date. Review DPCs were held and the petitioners

were promoted from retrospective dates between the years

1984 to 1986 and in respect thereafter an office order dated

12.10.1990 was issued.

9. Petitioners were released arrears of pay and their

salaries were fixed in the grade with retrospective effect.

10. On 17.11.1992, on the basis of an audit objection,

that salary for the period the petitioners have not actually

worked as Stenographer Grade II was inadmissible, recoveries

were sought to be effected. Said action has been challenged

in the writ petition on the ground that the respondents were

not justified in promoting other persons. Petitioners had to

litigate and managed to obtain orders for constitution of

review DPC to consider their claim for promotion in dates

between the years 1984 to 1988. Review DPC held in favour

of the petitioners, who were issued promotion orders

promoting them with retrospective effect. According to the

petitioners the respondents cannot take advantage of their

own wrong.

11. Per contra, the stand of the respondents is that

having not worked as Stenographers Grade II, the petitioners

cannot be paid salary in the said scale till they actually started

working as Stenographer Grade II.

12. In view of the fact that the petitioners were wrongly

denied promotions, equities are in favour of the petitioners

who could not work as Stenographer Grade II, not because

they refused to do so but because they were prevented from

so doing.

13. Considering the pettiness of the amounts involved

and the fact that the petition has been listed for final disposal

after 16 years as also the fact that the petitioners have

superannuated from service, we refrain from deciding the

issue on merits but dispose of the petition directing that no

deductions be made from the pensions which are being paid to

the petitioners. We clarify that deductions, if any, effected by

the respondents prior to the interim orders granted by this

Court would not be refundable to the petitioners pursuant to

the present order.

14. No costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(SURESH KAIT) JUDGE

October 13, 2009 mm