Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Ors. vs Ishwar Singh on 23 September, 2009
Author: A. K. Pathak
HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI
+ Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11495/2009
Judgment reserved on: 8th September, 2009
% Judgment delivered on: 23rd September, 2009
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ansul, Adv.
Versus
ISHWAR SINGH ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Manjeet Singh Reen,
Adv.
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Not required
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Not necessary
2. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? Not necessary
A.K. PATHAK, J.
1. Respondent was initially appointed as a casual labour
under Delhi Division of Northern Railway sometime in the
year 1982. Later on he acquired the temporary status of a
Gangman. Subsequently Respondent was put under the
construction organization on the post of Blacksmith, a
group „C‟ post, in the pay scale of 950-1500 (Grade-III)
purely on ad hoc basis in the year 1984 where he worked
upto 1995, when he was declared as surplus.
2. Vide order dated 2nd May, 1996 Respondent was
absorbed in the parent division as Khalasi, a group D post.
It was further ordered that the intervening period will be
treated as waiting for orders i.e. as if spent on duty.
3. Respondent made representations, requesting the
Petitioner to absorb him in the group „C‟ post and also to
protect his pay. Finding no response to his representations,
Respondent filed O.A. No. 145/2009 before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
(hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) praying therein that the
Petitioner be directed to protect the pay of Respondent from
13th June, 1995 onwards with all consequential benefits.
4. Vide the impugned order dated 1st June, 2009,
Tribunal by following the decision of the Supreme Court in
Badri Prasad and others vs. Union of India & others
reported in (2005) 11 SCC 304, directed the Petitioner to
protect the pay of Respondent as Blacksmith with effect
from 13th June, 1995 and also to pay arrears. It was further
ordered that Respondent be considered for promotion on
group „C‟ post as per his turn.
5. Aggrieved by this order, Petitioner has approached this
Court by way of present writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India praying therein that the impugned
order dated 1st June, 2009 passed in O.A. No. 145/2009 be
quashed.
6. In Badri Prasad‟s case (Supra), Supreme Court held as
under:-
"Without disturbing, therefore, orders of the
Tribunal and the High Court the appellants are
held entitled to be following additional reliefs.
The pay last drawn by them in group „C‟ post
shall be protected even after their repatriation
to group „D‟ post in their parent department.
They shall be considered in their turn for
promotion to group „C‟ post. The period of
service spent by them on ad hoc basis in group
„C‟ post shall be given due weightage and
counted towards length of requisite service, if
any, prescribed for higher post in group „C‟. If
there is any bar of age that shall be relaxed in
the case of the appellants."
7. Facts of the present case are more or less similar to the
facts involved in the Badri Prasad‟s case (supra). Tribunal,
by following above referred dicta of the Supreme Court,
directed the Petitioner to protect the pay of the respondent
as Blacksmith with arrears and consider his case for
promotion, as per his turn and the rules in vogue in the
division. In view thereof, we are not inclined to interfere
with the impugned order, in exercise of our powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution.
8. Petitioner has relied on an order dated 1st April, 2009
passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.6413/2002 titled as General Manager, Northern
Railway & Ors. vs. Jageshwar & Ors. to contend that the
Tribunal/Court cannot direct for pay protection. We are of
the view that this judgment is distinguishable, in the facts of
this case. In Jageshwar‟s case (supra), the persons working
as Mate, a group „C‟ post, in construction organization, were
absorbed in group „D‟ post in the main division, with their
consent. In this case no such record has been placed before
us to show that the respondents had given their consent for
absorption on a group „D‟ post.
9. In view of the above discussions writ petition is
dismissed.
A.K. PATHAK, J
MADAN B. LOKUR, J
SEPTEMBER 23, 2009
ga
