Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Ors. vs Sh. Rattan Lal on 9 December, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 9th December, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 4580/2011
% UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .......Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajesh Katyal, Adv.
Versus
SH. RATTAN LAL ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
JUDGMENT
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petition impugns the order dated 30.11.2010 of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA No.248/2010 under Section
19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 preferred by the respondent.
The respondent was / is working as a Saddler with the Central Ordnance
Department under the Ministry of Defence. He was aggrieved from non
grant of higher pay-scale of `4000-6000 meant for the "highly skilled"
category, to him inspite of the same having been granted to his junior Sh.
Khushi Ram. The Tribunal has found, that the respondent had initially
joined as a labourer / Mazdoor in the year 1984; that on qualifying requisite
departmental test, he had been promoted as a Leather Stitcher in the year
1993 and promoted further as a Saddler in the year 1998 getting the pay-
scale of `3050-4590 meant for the "skilled" category artisan. It is further
the admitted position that the feeder categories for the post of Saddler are,
Equipment and Boot Repair / Leather Stitcher / Boot Maker and Sh. Khushi
Ram aforesaid who was getting the higher pay-scale of `4000-6000 was a
Leather Stitcher.
2. It was the stand of the petitioner before the Tribunal, as also before us,
that with effect from 20.05.2003, the classification of Skilled, Highly Skilled
and Master Craftsman was introduced; that there was only one post of highly
skilled (with scale of `4000-6000) in the category of Saddler and which was
given to another Saddler who was senior to the respondent; similarly there is
one post of Highly Skilled in the category of Leather Stitcher which was
given to Sh. Khushi Ram being the senior most Leather Stitcher. It was thus
claimed that the respondent could not maintain the claim for a higher scale
owing to the same having been given to Sh. Khushi Ram.
3. The Tribunal has held as under:-
"7.1 On a careful consideration of the facts before us, we
find it pertinent that as per the RRs the post of „Saddler‟ is a
promotional post not only for the post of „Leather Stitcher‟
but also „Boot Maker‟. Admittedly vide the order dated
16.06.1998 the applicant had been promoted to the post of
Saddler; whereas by the same order Shri Khushi Ram had
been promoted as a Leather Stitcher. Thus he was below the
applicant. The reversal of the position by grant of highly
skilled pay scale to Shri Khushi Ram while denying the same
to the applicant and its justification in the context of the
restructuring scheme is not found to be tenable. The 2003
order had simply stipulated that all the trades classified as
„skilled‟ including the left out ones would stand modified in
two grades „skilled‟ and „highly skilled‟ with a higher pay
scale to the latter. The respective inter-grade ratio of 45%
and 55% were to be with reference to the sanctioned /
authorized strengths of respective trade. As per this Circular,
there was a mandate for effecting corresponding amendments
in the existing Recruitment Rules.
7.2 We have not found any averment coming from the
respondents about there having been a change in the
provisions relating to Saddler‟s post in the provisions as per
1980 Rules. Nor is there any averment regarding statutory
basis for treating the post of „Boot Maker‟ as a separate
category with a feeder channel of Leather Stitcher. As stated
above, as per the 1980 Rules both the posts of Leather
Stitcher and Boot Maker were included among the several
feeder categories for promotion to the post of „Saddler‟.
Subsequent instructions, even if any, could only have
supplemented the statutory rules and not supplanted or run
counter to them. In the above context, the action of the
respondents in granting the highly skilled pay scale to Khushi
Ram, treating the category of Boot Maker, as a separate one
is not found to be in consonance with the statutory Rules.
7.3 The respondents have also sought to justify their action
by stating that as a „Saddler‟ the highly skilled grade has
been given to one Mukesh Kumar, the senior-most in the rank;
but again vide their order dated 12.09.2008 they have shown
the applicant as a „Boot Maker‟ under the broad category of
„Saddler‟. There seems to be lack of consistency in the
respondents‟ stand.
7.4 The OA, though questioning the grant of higher scale to
Khushi Ram was not prayed for its quashing. In any case, for
want of impleadment it is not under our consideration. What
we are concerned is the apparent denial of higher pay scale to
the applicant.
7.5 It is trite in law that once a junior is granted a higher
scale, ordinarily the senior also becomes entitled for it. The
applicant‟s claim regarding his seniority vis-à-vis Khushi
Ram is borne out from the records before us. Resultantly,
allowing the OA partly and quashing the impugned orders,
the respondents are directed to accord the benefit of the
highly skilled artisan as prayed in para 8(b) of the OA. Even
though an averment of the respondents granting undue favour
to Khushi Ram and acting mala fide prejudicial to the
applicant has been raised; considering the settled position of
law that allegations of mala fide are more easily made than
made out; we find the same not acceptable. On this very
ground, we are not also inclined to grant the benefit of
interest or award of litigation costs. Our directions are to be
complied within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order."
4. The counsel for the petitioner has contended before us that the
respondent has not challenged the order dated 20.05.2003 and without
challenging the same, cannot be heard to claim the higher scale of a "highly
skilled" artisan on parity with Sh. Khushi Ram.
5. We are unable to agree. The Tribunal has rightly held that in terms of
the order dated 20.05.2003, the petitioner was required to effect
corresponding amendments in the existing Recruitment Rules and which had
not been done. Anomaly which exists, of a junior getting a higher scale,
tantamounting to punishing the respondent for having been promoted, is thus
a creature of the failure of the petitioner to amend the Recruitment Rules.
We are entirely in agreement with the Tribunal and such anomaly if allowed
to persist will be detrimental to harmony and lead to frustration and
disillusionment.
6. There is thus no merit in the writ petition; the same is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
DECEMBER 09, 2011/„gsr‟
