Delhi High Court
Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Shri Dev Sharma on 15 July, 2010
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision :15th July, 2010
+ W.P.(C) 8874/2009
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.V.K.Tandon, Advocate.
versus
SHRI DEV SHARMA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Sanjay Abbot, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. The facts are not in dispute. So let them be stated
as the agreed facts.
2. Since 23.12.1980, Dev Sharma stood appointed as a
Care Taker in the Department of Social Welfare and served the
department fairly well evidenced by the fact that never ever was
he issued a memorandum or a charge-sheet alleging
misconduct.
3. His service is governed by the Delhi Administration
Subordinate Service Rules 1967, Rule 6 whereof made him
eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of LDC/Grade-
IV (DASS) in the year 1995 inasmuch as he has the requisite
educational qualification, being a matriculate.
4. Whereas, vide order dated 13.12.1995 persons junior
to Dev Sharma were promoted as Grade-IV (DASS)/LDC, Dev
Sharma was overlooked for the reason his personal file could not
be located. From time to time thereafter persons junior to Dev
Sharma were promoted and his claim was overlooked for the
reason his personal file could not be located. He made a
representation in the year 2005 pointing out aforesaid facts and
claims that all these years he met his superior officers and
verbally communicated the injustice done to him; for which
there is no proof.
5. The poor man was constrained to file OA
No.1658/2006 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, where,
noting the aforesaid facts the Tribunal directed the petitioner to
forthwith consider Dev Sharma's case for promotion and if
promoted, the date of effect would be when persons junior to
him were promoted and in such situation Dev Sharma would be
considered for grant of consequential benefits. These directions
were issued not only on account of the afore-noted admitted
facts but even the fact that the petitioner informed the Tribunal
that it was actively considering the candidature of Dev Sharma
for promotion.
6. Thereafter, the petitioner promoted Dev Sharma with
effect from 26.10.2006 and this led Dev Sharma to file OA
No.104/2008 praying that since his immediate junior was
promoted on 31.12.1995, he should be promoted from said date
and if not from said date, at least from 21.6.2002 when the next
set of promotions were made.
7. Noting that Dev Sharma had made a representation
only in the year 2005 and the fact that if not from 31.12.1995,
undisputably his claim for promotion was overlooked with effect
from 21.6.2002, the Tribunal has passed the following
directions:-
"5. Having said so, the question that still arises is as
to whether what relief can be given to the applicant in
the context of the fact that even though, the relief
claimed by him would not be barred by limitation, the
applicant had nonetheless woken up after a long
slumber and made a representation for the first time
about a year or so before his date of superannuation.
Interests of parties, in this situation, in our view, have
to be balanced. We are of the considered view that it
would be fair and equitable if under the circumstances
as mentioned above the applicant is notionally
promoted from 21.6.2002 when persons junior to him
were promoted with all consequential benefits, but for
wages of the promoted post. Insofar as, the back
wages are concerned, the applicant would be entitled
to the same on the promotional post with effect from
the date he made his representation in 2005. The
arrears on that count be calculated and made over to
the applicant within three months from today. The
respondents would calculate the post-retiral benefits
of the applicant as if he was promoted to the post of
Grade-IV (DASS)/LDC w.e.f. 21.6.2002 and made over
the arrears on that count within the same period."
8. Indeed, in view of the facts noted above, the findings
returned by the Tribunal cannot be found wanting in law or on
facts. For the reason, Dev Sharma made a belated
representation, back wages have been denied to him for the
period prior to when he made the representation. But for the
reason his entitlement for promotion was admittedly overlooked
with effect from 21.6.2002, (it be noted that the Tribunal has
recorded that Dev Sharma has given up claim for promotion
with effect from 1995 and has restricted the right with effect
from 21.6.2002) he has been directed to be promoted notionally
from said date and the result is that Dev Sharma would be
entitled to the benefit of the grade in question with effect from
21.6.2002 but no arrears would be paid to him from said date till
the date he made the representation in the year 2005.
9. That the claim of Dev Sharma was overlooked when
persons junior to him were promoted on 21.6.2002 is not in
dispute. The only issue urged is the effect of Dev Sharma
belatedly raising the issue in the year 2005.
10. We find that the Tribunal has well adjusted the
equities between the parties and the same requires no
interference under writ jurisdiction.
11. The writ petition is dismissed with costs assessed at
Rs.5,000/- against the petitioner and in favour of Dev Sharma.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
JULY 15, 2010
dk
