Ishwar Dev Verma vs Up State Bridge Corporation Ltd. & ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 98 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        W.P.(C.) No. 14450/2005

%                  Date of Decision: 11th JANUARY,2010


#     ISHWAR DEV VERMA
                                                             .....PETITIONER

!                  Through:   Mr. A.J.Khan, Advocate.

                                   VERSUS

$     UP STATE BRIDGE CORPORATION LTD. & ANOTHER
                                               .....RESPONDENTS

^                  Through:   Mr.Kuljiwan Goyal , Advocate

CORAM:
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? NO

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO

S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) The petitioner is working with Project Manager, Construction Unit,

Dhaula Kuan, New Delhi, a unit of UP State Bridge Corporation Ltd. (the

respondents herein). He was appointed by the respondents in 1978 to the

post of Dozer Operator and is working on the said post since then till

date. His pay scale up to 05.11.2001 was Rs.950-1500/- and upon

implementation of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission, his

pay scale was revised from Rs.3,500/- to Rs.4,590/- vide order dated

05.02.2003 (Annexure P-1 at pages 11 & 12 of the paper book). Later on

his basic pay was reduced from Rs. 4,590/- to Rs.3,540/- vide office order

of 2005 (Annexure P-2 at page 13 of the paper book).

2 The petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuance of a writ of

certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction against the

respondents quashing the office order of 2005 bearing No. 053/SB-C/B

2004-05 dated Nil by which his basic pay has been reduced from

Rs.4,590/- to Rs.3,540/-.

3 The respondents, in response to this petition, have filed their

counter affidavit in which they have defended reduction of basic pay of

the petitioner from Rs.4,590/- to Rs.3,540/- on the ground that there was

no post of Dozer Operator with the respondents and that there was no

pay scale for the said post and for that reason, according to the

respondents, the petitioner was treated in the pay scale of operator only.

4 A perusal of the contents of the counter affidavit filed by the

respondents reveals that the respondents have not disputed that the

petitioner was appointed by the respondents in 1978 to the post of Dozer

Operator. Annexure P-1, which is an office order dated 05.02.2003 by

which after implementation of recommendations of the Fifth Pay

Commission, the pay of the petitioner was revised from Rs.3,500/- to

Rs.4,590/- w.e.f. 06.11.2001, shows that his pay scale up to 05.11.2001

was Rs.950-1,500/-. In Annexure P-2, an office order of 2005, by which

the pay of the petitioner was reduced from Rs.4,590/- to Rs.3,540/-, the

pay scale of the petitioner up to 05.11.2001 in Column No. 10 of the said

order is shown Rs.775-1,025/-. Both these office orders filed by the

petitioner as annexures to the writ petition have not been controverted

by the respondents in their counter affidavit. Learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the petitioner has placed on record copy of order of the

respondents dated 27.08.2007 according to which post of Dozer Operator

is shown to exist with the respondents and the pay scale mentioned

against the said post is Rs.3,500-4,590/-.

5 Mr. Kuljiwan Goyal learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents has contended that the post of Dozer Operator was created

in the department of the respondents for the first time in 2007 and for

that reason, the petitioner was throughout treated as operator and his

pay was revised from Rs.4,590/- to Rs.3,540/-. It is difficult to swallow this

argument advanced on behalf of the respondents. In case the post of

Dozer Operator, as alleged, was created for the first time in 2007 then

why and how the respondents appointed the petitioner to the post of

Dozer Operator more than three decades back in 1978. This query on

being asked could not be answered by Mr. Goyal, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the respondents. On a comparison of Annexures

P-1 & P-2, there appears to be an inherent fallacy in the stand of the

respondents regarding the pay scale of the petitioner upto 05.11.2001. In

the document by which his pay scale was revised from Rs.3,500-4,590/-

as a measure of implementation of recommendations of the Fifth Pay

Commission, his pay scale up to 05.11.2001 is shown Rs.950-1,500/-

whereas in the document Annexure P-2 by which the pay of the petitioner

was reduced from Rs.4,590/- to Rs.3,540/- w.e.f. 06.11.2001, his pay

scale upto 05.11.2001 is shown Rs.750-1,025/-. It is evident from the

record that the action of the respondents in reducing the pay of the

petitioner from Rs.4,590/- to Rs.3,540/- vide impugned office order

(Annexure P-2 at page 13 of the paper book), the respondents have acted

arbitrarily and without any justiciable reason. The impugned order of

2005 by which the pay of the petitioner was reduced by the respondents,

therefore, cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny and is hereby set

aside. Directions are given to the respondents to restore the pay of

Rs.4,590/- of the petitioner w.e.f. 06.11.2001 and grant him all annual

increments in the pay scale of Rs.3,500-4,590/- which he might have

earned in the said scale as per rules. The arrears of pay be paid to the

petitioner within eight weeks from today.

6. This writ petition stands disposed of in terms referred above

leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Order dasti.

JANUARY 11, 2010                                S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'A'