Delhi High Court
R.P.Arora vs Union Of India & Ors on 28 January, 2010
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C.) No.6048/2008
% Date of Decision: 28.01.2010
R.P.Arora .... Petitioner
Through Mr.H.K.Chaturvedi, Advocate
Versus
Union of India & Ors .... Respondents
Through Ms.Geetanjali Mohan, 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 petitioner has challenged the order dated 9th July, 2007
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New
Delhi in O.A No.2088/2006 titled R.P.Arora v. Union of India through
General Manager, North Western Railway, Jaipur and Ors dismissing
his petition seeking quashing of order dated 29th May, 2006 and
declining the prayer of the petitioner for refixing his pay and pensionary
benefits with effect from 11th January, 1988 by way of step up at par
with his juniors with all consequential benefits as per Railway Boards
circular dated 16th October, 1964.
The petitioner claims step up of his pay at par with his juniors on
the ground that Western Railway communication dated 14th July, 1954
had contemplated that instructors deputed to Ajmer and Udaipur
Training Schools retain a lien in their parent categories and as such he
could not be promoted on account of being on deputation whereas his
juniors were given ad-hoc promotion.
The respondents had opposed the plea of the petitioner on the
ground that petitioner's name was on the panel dated 18th January,
1988 along with other employees including his juniors and he was
promoted to pay scale of Rs.700-800/- vide order dated 25th January,
1988. The application was resisted on the ground that it is barred by
limitation as his representation had already been replied in the year
1999 to claim setup of his pay at par with his juniors. While replying to
petitioner's representations it was categorically stated that his juniors
were not promoted to the revised pay scale of Rs.2000-3200/- but were
promoted along with the petitioner by order dated 25th January, 1988
on regular basis. It was also asserted that the juniors to the petitioner
were promoted on adhoc basis in 1985 to the pay scale of Rs.1600-
2660/-, however, on account of adhoc promotion given to the juniors
earlier, the same could not be given to the petitioner.
The Tribunal after considering the pleas and contentions have
noted that in terms of circular dated 16th October, 1964, if there is an
administrative error on account of which any promotion is lost, then an
employee would not suffer on account of seniority as well as pay,
however, the petitioner cannot contend that not granting adhoc
promotion is on account of any administrative error as the petitioner
was on deputation to another organization and could not be granted ad-
hoc promotion required for administrative exigencies.
The Tribunal has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of Union of India v. R.Swaminathan and Ors, (1997) 7 SCC 690
where considering FR 22(1) and also the O.M dated 4th November, 1993
detailing the instances where the stepping up of pay cannot be done.
The Supreme Court had held as under:-
" The memorandum makes it clear that in such
instances of junior drawing more pay than his senior will
not constitute an anomaly and, therefore, stepping up of
pay will not be admissible. The increased pay drawn by a
junior because of ad hoc officiating or regular service
rendered by him in the higher post for periods earlier than
the senior is not an anomaly because pay does not depend
on seniority alone nor is seniority alone a criterion for
stepping up of pay.
The aggrieved employees have contended with some
justification that local officiating promotions within a Circle
have resulted in their being deprived of a chance to officiate
in the higher post, if such chance of officiation arises in a
different Circle. They have submitted that since there is an
All India seniority for regular promotions, this All India
seniority must prevail even while making local officiating
appointments within any Circle. The question is basically of
administrative exigency and the difficulty that the
administration may face if even short-term vacancies have
to be filled on the basis of All India seniority by calling a
person who may be stationed in a different Circle in a
region remote from the region where the vacancy arises,
and that too for a short duration. This is essentially a
matter of administrative policy. But the only justification
for local promotions is their short duration. If such vacancy
is of a long duration there is no administrative reason for
not following the all India seniority. Most of the grievances
of the employees will be met if proper norms are laid down
for making local officiating promotions. One thing, however,
is clear. Neither the seniority nor the regular promotion of
these employees is affected by such officiating local
arrangements. The employees who have not officiated in the
higher post earlier, however, will not get the benefit of the
Provision to Fundamental Rule 22."
The petitioner therefore, cannot claim stepping up of his pay at
par with his juniors who had been given ad-hoc promotions when the
petitioner was on deputation and therefore, he could not be given ad-
hoc promotions which were given to some of the juniors of the
petitioner.
The petitioner also cannot claim ad-hoc promotion after a
considerable gap of time. In fact the petitioner had not made a
grievance for not granting the adhoc promotion nor had claimed
notional ad-hoc promotion, which could not be granted to him, but had
only sought step up of pay in consonance with the pay of his juniors,
which was higher than that of the petitioner on account of adhoc
promotion given to some of the juniors. The adhoc promotions in any
case could not be given to the petitioner because he was working in a
different department on deputation and could not have been considered
for such ad-hoc promotion.
In the circumstances, there are no grounds to step up the pay of
the petitioner considering the pay of his juniors who had been given ad-
hoc promotions. There are no grounds to interfere with the decision of
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in the facts and
circumstances and the writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
JANUARY 28, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'k'
