Sh.Ram Raj Sethi vs Ndmc
2010 Latest Caselaw 186 Del

*                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                                W.P. (C.) No.230/2010

%                            Date of Decision: 14.01.2010

Sh.Ram Raj Sethi                                           .... Petitioners
                             Through Mr.Brij Bhushan Gupta and Mr.Ankit
                                     Jain, Advocates.


                                      Versus

NDMC                                                        .... 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 petitioner has challenged the order dated 23rd March, 2009 in

T.A No.349/2009 titled Sh.Ram Raj Sethi v. New Delhi Municipal

Council dismissing his petition against the order dated 11th November,

2003 whereby consequent upon withdrawal of time bound promotional

scale granted to the petitioner from 18th May, 1994 and his pay was re-

fixed from 1st May, 1994 and consequent thereto office order dated 20th

December, 1999 had been withdrawn.

The petitioner was employed as Latheman from 18th May, 1976

and was appointed as Turner on 13th July, 1981. After he passed a

trade test for promotion to the category of machine man he was

promoted as machine man on 21st May, 1991 and again after qualifying

a trade test he was appointed as a foreman from 1st April, 1998.

In 1999 he was generally informed regarding proposal for

extension of time bound promotional scale under which all the

employees were entitled for first time bound promotional scale on

completion of 10 years regular service. Under the said scheme second

time bound promotional scale was to be given on completion of further

eight years of service. The scales so admissible were the next available

higher scale in the channel of promotion.

Under the scheme erroneously time bound promotions were given

to everyone including petitioner irrespective of having obtained the

promotions by some of the employees. Time bound promotion was

applicable to an employee only after 10 years of promotion. The

petitioner had got the promotion in 1998 and he was entitled for

promotion only after 10 years, however, he had been granted promotion

erroneously which had been rectified by the Corporation by order dated

11th November, 2003.

The Tribunal has noted the object of scheme which did not entitle

every employee to get promotion and the plea of the petitioner that basic

intention of the scheme was to give time bound promotion without

reference to actual promotion was repelled.

For considering the time bound promotion, the promotion already

granted to an employee is material and has to be considered. From the

perusal of the scheme it is apparent that it was never intended to confer

grades to employees notwithstanding that in the meanwhile they had

been getting promotions. The petitioner had obtained promotion as

machine man on 21st May, 1991 and, therefore, he would have become

entitled to first time bound promotion scale from 21st May, 2001 and

not earlier. The petitioner before 21st May, 2001 also passed the trade

test and was promoted to Foreman on 1st April, 1998 and, therefore, he

could not avail additional entitlement for promotion and his promotion

could be only after 10 years after 1st April, 1998.

In the circumstances, there is no illegality or irregularity in the

order of the Tribunal which will require any interference by this Court.

The writ petition in the facts and circumstances is without any merit

and it is, therefore, dismissed.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

JANUARY 14, 2010                                 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'k'