Delhi High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Sh.B.M.Mallappa on 20 January, 2010
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C.) No.399/2010
% Date of Decision: 20.01.2010
Union of India and others .... Petitioners
Through Ms.Jyoti Singh, Advocate.
Versus
Sh.B.M.Mallappa .... Respondent
Through Mr.L.R.Khatana, Advocate.
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 have challenged the order dated 1st May, 2009
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New
Delhi in OA No.2004 of 2008 titled Sh.B.M.Mallappa v. Union of India
through the Secretary, Department of Culture, whereby the Original
Application of the petitioner seeking second stage financial upgradation
under ACP Scheme in the pay scale of Rs.14300 - 18300 from the date
the petitioner had completed 24 years of service with all consequential
arrears was allowed.
The petitioners had rejected the demand of the respondent for
grant of ACP second stage financial upgradation in the pay scale of
Rs.14,300-18,300 by order dated 9th September, 2008 on the basis of
alleged clarification No.56 of the ACP Scheme which order was
challenged by the respondent.
The Tribunal noticed that similar and identical issue was raised
before the Tribunal in another Original Application titled S.C. Bhalla v.
Union of India and another decided on 12th April, 2005 holding that a
clarification would not supersede the main Scheme of ACP and
therefore, allowed the Application for grant of financial upgradation in
the scale. The decision dated 12th April, 2005 was challenged by the
petitioners in the High Court of Delhi, however, the order was upheld in
W.P. (C.) No.14708-09/2006 by order dated 3rd September, 2007.
In view of the aforementioned and relying on the order of the
Tribunal in case of S.C. Bhalla (supra), it was held that the respondent
shall also be entitled for similar benefit.
Before the Tribunal, the grant of second stage financial
upgradation under the ACP Scheme was challenged by the petitioners
on the ground that the decision in S.C. Bhalla (supra), which was
affirmed by the High Court, was also challenged before the Apex Court
and the matter was sub judice. The Tribunal noticed that the Apex
Court had not stayed the order of the Tribunal and the High court in
S.C. Bhalla (supra) and consequently had allowed the original
application of the respondent.
Learned counsel for petitioners has contended that the matter is
pending before the Supreme Court. Mr.Khatana, learned counsel for
the respondent, who has appeared on advance notice, has contended
that the matter of S.C. Bhalla (supra) has also been decided by the
Supreme Court in CA No.6122 of 2005 by order dated 20th October,
2009 holding that the respondents before the Apex Court were entitled
to financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme
circulated vide Office Memorandum dated 9th August, 1999 and that the
clarification issued on February 10, 2000 is not applicable to them and
that the respondents were also entitled for the consequential direction
given for grant/restoration of financial benefits in terms of the Assured
Career Progression Scheme as it did not suffer from any legal infirmity
and consequently the Apex Court upheld the decision of the High Court
not to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal in S.C. Bhalla (supra).
Consequently, there are no grounds to interfere with the order of
the Tribunal dated 1st May, 2009 granting second stage financial
upgradation under ACP Scheme in the pay scale of Rs.14,300-18,300/-
from the date the petitioner had completed 24 years of service relying
on S.C. Bhalla v. Union of India and another decided on 12th April,
2005.
There are no grounds to interfere in the facts and circumstances
with the order of the Tribunal dismissing the petition of the petitioner.
The writ petition is, therefore, without any merit and it is dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
JANUARY 20, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'k/Dev'
