Tara Chand vs Union Of India & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 2511 Del

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                     Date of Judgment: 11.05.2010

+                             W.P.(C) NO.7379/1999

       TARA CHAND                                           ......Petitioner
                                      Through:   Mr.Venkat Subramanium
                                                 and Mr.S.Ganesh,
                                                 Advocates.

                       Versus

       UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                             .......Respondents
                          Through:               Mr.Gaurav Sharma,
                                                 Mr.J.P.Karunakaran &
                                                 Mr.Bosco K.T., Advts. for
                                                 Respondent no.2/IIT.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
        the judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
                                                                   Yes

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
                                                          Yes

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1. Petitioner Tara Chand has assailed the Memorandum dated

25.11.1999 as also the subsequent communication dated

30.10.2000. Vide Memorandum dated 25.11.1999 the petitioner

was informed that after having considered his representation

dated 12.8.1999, he is given the pay scale of Rs.3200-4900 while

protecting his pay; further in case, he does not wish to continue as

Lab Assistant he could opt to remain in Group D Attendant

category in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000. The second

communication dated 30.10.2000 informed the petitioner that he

is placed in the pay scale of Rs.3200-4900 with effect from

18.9.1998 while protecting his pay. Both these orders are the

subject matter of the present writ petition.

2. The undisputed facts are as follows:

(i) Petitioner was appointed in the IIT, Delhi as Class IV

Attendant on a temporary post for a period of two years with effect

from 2.3.1977.

(ii) His services were confirmed on 18.12.1977.

(iii) Petitioner‟s service including all employees of Group D, C, B

and A were governed by the Recruitment and Career Development

scheme for non academic staff i.e Group B, C and D (hereinafter

referred to as „R & C.D. scheme‟).

(iv) Pursuant to R & C.D. scheme an advertisement dated

5.3.1998 was issued by the IIT, Delhi. This advertisement was

circulated amongst the Group D employees of the institute who

had reached in the pay scale of Group C. The advertisement

categorically stated

"The eligible employees will be considered for assessment by duly constituted assessment committees subject to availability of vacancies in the appropriate cadre of Group C entry level posts as per requirement/need of the Institute. There will be no change in pay on being appointed to Group C posts and appointment in Group C posts will be personal to such individuals."

 (v)     Petitioner was one such applicant.

(vi)    Vide letter dated 18.9.1998 petitioner was informed that on

the recommendation of the Selection Committee he had been

designated as a Laboratory Assistant in the entry level Group C.

This was along with other similarly placed employees. This

communication further informed him that this designation would

be personal to him and his pay would be protected. In this

appointment letter dated 18.9.1998 his pay scale was shown as

Rs.4000-6000. He was shown at Sl.No.6. There were nine other

persons who had been promoted along with him from Group D to

Group C category.

(vii) On 30.7.1999, petitioner was informed that while protecting

his pay in the category of Group C as an Assistant, the petitioner

shall be placed in the pay scale 3200-4900. In case, he does not

opt for coming to the scale of Lab Assistant he may choose to

remain in Group D by having the same pay scale that he had had

before being selected as a Lab Assistant.

(viii) On 12.8.1999, petitioner represented to the institute against

this Memorandum dated 30.7.1999 which was rejected vide

communication dated 25.11.1999. It was reiterated that petitioner

had been giving the pay scale of Rs.3200-4900 while protecting his

pay as a Lab Assistant. He was again given option to remain as

Group D attendant in the earlier pay scale of Rs.4000-6000.

(ix) Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present petition.

3. On 14.12.1999, this writ petition was disposed of with the

direction that a fresh representation will be made by the petitioner

raising his grievances that he is entitled to the pay scale of

Rs.4000-6000 as had been mentioned in his appointment letter

dated 18.9.1998.

4. Reminder dated 7.1.2000 were issued by the respondent to

the petitioner requesting him to present his representation in

terms of the order of this court dated 14.12.1999.

5. The subsequent representation dated 20.1.2000 of the

petitioner was decided by the department by a detailed order

dated 28.7.2000. It was stated that the communication dated

18.9.1998 placing the petitioner at serial no.6 for the post of Lab

Assistant had wrongly mentioned his pay scale as Rs.4000-6000

whereas the correct pay scale should have been Rs.3200-4900/-

which was the pay scale of the Lab Assistant in a Group C post. It

was informed that this mistake in the communication dated

18.9.1998 had been pointed out by one Ram Bilas Paswan and on

his representation this mistake had been noted. Accordingly, the

memorandum dated 30.7.1999 was issued to the petitioner

informing him that he was placed in the pay scale of Rs.3200-4900

with further option to revert back in Group D in case he wants to

opt pay scale of Rs.4000-6000.

6. Order dated 28.7.2000 had been communicated to the

petitioner on 30.10.2000 which is also subject matter for challenge

in the present matter.

7. Contention of counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly

Group C is a promotional post; petitioner had the normal human

expectation that in the promotional avenue for which he had opted

and had been selected he would also get a financial benefit and

advantage in the pay scale; the department by placing the

petitioner in the lesser pay scale of Rs.3200-4900 has worked to

the disadvantage of the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayers made

in his petition be allowed and the impugned memorandum dated

25.11.1999 and the communication dated 30.10.2000 reiterating

that he is placed in the pay scale of Rs.3200-4900 be set aside.

8. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent has been

perused. Respondent has countered the submissions of the

petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner very well knew when he

had applied to the post of Group C post pursuant to the

advertisement dated 5.3.1998 that his personal pay would remain

protected but he would be placed in the pay scale of Group C

candidates.

9. The record supports the arguments and the stand of the

respondent. Advertisement dated 5.3.1998 categorically states

that there will be no change in the pay of the applicant on his

being appointed to the Group C post and the appointment in the

Group C post would be personal to such an individual. The

petitioner had applied with full knowledge of this condition. The

appointment letter dated 18.9.1998 has been perused. Ten

candidates had been selected and appointed in the Group C

category from their Group D status. The name of the petitioner

figures at serial no.6. Amongst the ten candidatures considered

and selected only his pay scale has been mentioned as pay scale of

Rs.4000-6000. The fact that this is a typing mistake is clear from

the preceding paragraph of this communication which inter alia

reads as follows:

"With reference to the applications received in response to the above referred advertisement and subsequent Test and Interview of the shortlisted Gp."D" employees, the Director on recommendations of the Selection Committee is pleased to designate the following Group "D" employees in the Group "C" post as mentioned against them with immediate effect as personal to them without any change in the pay and pay-scale but protecting the date of next increment."

10. This mistake had been pointed out to the department by a

co-employee i.e. one Ram Bilas Paswan. The representation of

Ram Bilas Paswan is dated 4.1.1999. It was then that the

department became aware of their mistake. The fact that this was

an error is further clear from the fact that in the case of all other

nine employees who had been selected and promoted to Group C

from Group D category, only against the name of the petitioner the

pay scale had been mentioned as Rs.4000-6000; the pay scale of

all other employees who had also been promoted from Group D to

Group C along with the petitioner were shown to be in the pay

scale of Rs.3050-4590. This error was corrected by a corrigendum

and communication dated 30.7.1999.

11. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner had all-along

been informed that in case he is aggrieved by the pay scale of the

Group C employees he had option to revert back to his Group D

status with the earlier scale of Rs.4000-6000. Petitioner did not

opt for that. Petitioner continued in the Group C category as a Lab

Assistant. Thereafter in the course of the proceedings in the

present writ petition the order dated 14.12.1999 was passed by

this court. Directions had been given to the department to

consider afresh the grievances of the petitioner. On 28.7.2000 the

department vide a detailed order considered the representation of

the petitioner in terms of the order of this court dated 14.12.1999.

It was reiterated and informed to the petitioner that advertisement

vide which he had opted to be selected in the Group C category

had clearly endorsed that while protecting the pay of such

applicants the appointment in such a category would be personal

only to such individuals. All other candidates who had been

selected in the Group C category along with the petitioner had

been granted the pay scale of a Group C employee; this is evident

from the appointment letter dated 18.9.1998. Pay scale against

the name of the petitioner had inadvertently mentioned his pay

scale as Rs.4000-6000. This was rectified and duly informed to

him with an alternate option of continuing to remain in the Group

D category with earlier pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 which the

petitioner did not choose to opt for.

12. In these circumstances, it is clear that the grievances of the

petitioner are not genuine; memorandum dated 25.11.1999 and

communication dated 30.10.2000 by the department had only

corrected their clerical mistake which had crept in in the

appointment letter dated 18.9.1998. He was rightly as per R and

C.D. rules, while placing him in the Group C category as Lab

Assistant, given him pay scale which is applicable to the Group C

category. The petitioner has been placed at par with his other co-

employees. His pay is protected. It is also not a case where the

advertisement seeking applications in the Group C category from

the Group D employees is under challenge.

13. Orders impugned are legal and clearly within the parameters

of the policy and rules of the department. There is no merit in this

writ petition; it is dismissed. No orders as to costs.

(INDERMEET KAUR) JUDGE May 11, 2010.

rb