Delhi High Court
Union Of India vs Shri Lal Singh on 19 February, 2010
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C.) No.1050/2010
% Date of Decision: 19.02.2010
Union of India .... Petitioner
Through Kumar Rajesh Singh, Advocate
Versus
Shri Lal Singh .... Respondent
Through Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO
the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
The petitioners Union of India through the General Manager,
North Central Railway and Anr. has challenged the order dated 14th
September, 2009 passed in OA No. 2049/2008 titled as Lal Singh Vs.
Union of India and Ors., by the Central Administrative Tribunal
whereby the original application filed by the respondent was allowed
and the petitioners were directed to issue orders of pay fixation as per
financial up-gradation granted to the respondent and to ensure
payment of arrears to him. The petitioners were also directed to re-fix
his retiral dues as the respondent has retired from 31st July, 2006.
The respondent was aggrieved on account of not granting benefits
under Assured Career Progression Scheme even though according to
the respondent orders were issued in the case of other employees
granting similar benefit as claimed by the respondent which were
extended to other persons but declined to the respondent.
The respondent was appointed in 1972 as a Gangman (a Group
'D' post) and as a storeman in 1986. The respondent contended that as
a storeman he was entitled for the benefit of financial up-gradation
under the ACP Scheme from the scale of 2650-4000 to that of 3050-
4590 and in support of his plea, he relied on an office order dated 16th
March, 2005, which was issued in respect of some other employees of
Allahabad Division.
The respondent also claimed financial up-gradation under the
ACP Scheme on the ground that a written examination was scheduled
on 10th December, 2005 for storeman under the consideration zone and
the respondent along with similarly other eligible storemen had
appeared in the examination and the other similarly situated persons
was granted benefit of financial up-gradation.
The petition was contested by the petitioners contending inter-
alia that the order dated 16th March, 2005 relied on by the respondent
was not relevant for the purpose of respondent and that no post of
storeman existed in Civil Engineering Department of Allahabad
Division. The petitioners also contended that the substantive post of
the respondent was of Gangman (Group-D category post) and
consequently, the respondent was not eligible for grant of financial up-
gradation and the orders relied on by the respondents were issued on
account of administrative errors.
Petitioners also contended that claim of up-gradation from 2650-
4000 to 3050-4590 is also not tenable as it involves jump of two grades
whereas under the ACP Scheme up-gradation only by one grade is
contemplated.
The Tribunal had ordered production of service book of the
respondent. From the service book, it was inferred that in 1985, the
respondent was working as a storeman on officiating basis, however, he
was regularised subsequently as his service book contained an entry
that he had cleared a written test and had declared fit for the post of
Storeman vide an order dated 15th January, 1986.
Consequently, it was held that the respondent was holding the
post of storeman in substantive capacity. Learned counsel for the
petitioner is unable to disclose any cogent ground against the findings
of the Tribunal, based on the service book of the respondent.
From mere allegation of the petitioners that respondent was
merely working on work charged post, in absence of any other plea or
document contrary to the service book of the respondent, cannot be
accepted.
The petitioners' case is not that the entries made in the service
book of the respondent are not correct or manipulated by him. In the
circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to differ with the
findings of the Tribunal. On the basis of the service book, the Tribunal
also inferred that the respondent was given up-gradation to the grade of
3050-4590 along with other similarly situated persons.
The orders dated 18th August, 2006 pertaining to the respondent
and order dated 22nd August, 2006 with regard to 12 other persons also
justify the same and consequently the respondent was given financial
up-gradation on the scale of 3050-4590. Therefore, the finding of the
Tribunal that the respondent had to be given financial up-gradation to
the scale of Rs. 3050-45490 w.e.f. 1st October, 1999 cannot be
interfered with.
The plea of the petitioner that the grade of 3050-4590 is two
grades higher than 2650-4000 is also negated on the ground that if this
grade was given on account of an error, the same should have been
rectified by any subsequent order and as no rectification order has ever
been issued nor produced before the Tribunal, this plea also cannot be
accepted nor it can be held that that the grade was given on account of
any error. The learned counsel for the petitioners is also unable to show
that the grade is on account of any error. In the facts and
circumstances it cannot be held that the Tribunal has committed an
error in not accepting such a plea of the petitioners.
In the circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with
the order of the Tribunal. The petitioners have failed to show any such
illegality and irregularity which would require interference by this Court
in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
FEBRUARY 19, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'rs'
