Delhi High Court
R.L. Girdhar vs The Food Corporation Of India & ... on 10 February, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 10th February, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 5161/2005
R.L. GIRDHAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gulab Chandra, Adv.
Versus
THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
& ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
AND
W.P.(C) 5687/2005
R.L. GIRDHAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gulab Chandra, Adv.
Versus
THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers 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 No
in the Digest?
W.P.(C) 5161/2005 & W.P.(C) 5687/2005 Page 1 of 7
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petitioner, after 10 years of retirement on 30th June, 1995 of
lifelong service with the respondent, has filed these two writ petitions
making monetary claims. W.P.(C) No.5161/2005 seeks mandamus for
payment of ` 60,000/- as interest for inordinate delay in pay fixation and
financial benefits. W.P.(C) No.5687/2005 seeks mandamus to consider the
Notional Promotion of petitioner as Deputy Manager (General) from 1985
onwards and for release of `70,000/- as arrears of four increments as a
consequence of such Notional Promotion.
2. The petitioner in the year 1970 was working as Assistant Grade-I
(A/C) with the Delhi Office of the respondent. He was vide office order
dated 26/27th June, 1970 promoted to the post of Assistant Manager (A/C)
with posting to Punjab & Haryana region Chandigarh. He claims that on
administrative ground that suitable substitute was not available, he was not
relieved and owing whereto he continued to draw the scale of Assistant
Grade only and was deprived of the higher scale as an Assistant Manager.
He claims to have been ultimately relieved on 19th May, 1971 whereafter
he joined Regional Office, Lucknow with effect from 9th June, 1971. He
contends that because of the delay in relieving him, his
contemporaries/juniors who had immediately joined as Assistant Manager
started receiving higher scale and received increments, while he was
deprived of the same. He claims that no decision was also taken on his
representation inspite of the Circular dated 26th July, 1973. He claims that
in accordance with the said Circular, others similarly placed as him, were
granted the benefit but the benefit of the Circular was also denied to him.
3. The petitioner claims that on the basis of the seniority of 1972 as
Assistant Manager, he was promoted to Deputy Manager (General) on 8 th
July, 1980 but which the petitioner could not avail for being unable to take
up posting outside Delhi. He claims that he was similarly again promoted
on 9th September, 1992 but again could not avail of the same. He
ultimately under promotion order dated 13th July, 1994 with effect from 1st
August, 1994 joined the post of Deputy Manager (General) and as
aforesaid resigned from the said post on 30th June, 1995.
4. The petitioner post retirement continued to represent; he was
ultimately vide letter dated 26th November, 2002 granted the notional scale
as Assistant Manager (General) with effect from 1970 with the stipulation
that financial benefits would be allowed from actual date of joining as
Assistant Manager i.e. with effect from 9th June, 1971 only.
5. The petitioner thereafter represented for financial benefits with
effect from 27th June, 1970 with interest charge of `60,000/-. The said
claim of interest was rejected on 16th September, 2003 and whereafter
W.P.(C) No.5161/2005 was filed.
6. Though no grievance was made in W.P.(C) No.5161/2005 in any
other respect but soon thereafter W.P.(C) No.5687/2005 was filed
contending that pursuant to the notional empanelment as Assistant
Manager in revised scale, financial benefit vide letter dated 3rd June/26th
November, 2002 aforesaid, the petitioner has also become entitled to
consideration afresh for Notional Promotion as Deputy Manager (General)
against the panel of 1985 onwards and which had not been done. Claiming
that a sum of `70,000/- as arrears would be due to him upon such Notional
Promotion as Deputy Manager in 1985 as against actual promotion as
Deputy Manager in 1994, the sum of `70,000/- is claimed.
7. Notices of both the writ petitions were issued and counter affidavits
filed by the respondent. The respondent in the counter affidavit in W.P.(C)
No.5161/2005 has pleaded that the promotion on 26/27th June, 1970 from
Assistant Grade-I to Assistant Manager was ad hoc only and even if the
petitioner had then joined as the Assistant Manager, he would have been
reverted after the expiry of maximum one year. It is thus contended that
the petitioner had no right to any dues as Assistant Manager on the basis of
such promotion.
8. It is also denied that the petitioner has been discriminated against. It
is denied that the Circular dated 26th July, 1973 applied to the case of the
petitioner. It is further pleaded that even those who were given ad hoc
promotion along with the petitioner were subsequently reverted. It is yet
further pleaded that the petitioner made a request for pay fixation only
close to his retirement and at no earlier point of time. With respect to the
promotion to Deputy Manager, it is pleaded that on account of 'low merit
rating', the petitioner could not find place in the panel and his juniors with
better merit rating were empanelled.
9. The respondent in the counter affidavit in W.P.(C) No.5687/2005
has pleaded that Deputy Manager (General) is a selection post and
selections are made on the basis of merit and the question of notional pay
fixation from 1985 does not arise as he was promoted to the post of Deputy
Manager (General) only on 24th June, 1994.
10. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the counter affidavits.
11. The respondent was proceeded against ex parte on 28th September,
2010.
12. The counsel for the petitioner has stated that he has filed synopsis of
submission and he has nothing further to add.
13. The files and the synopsis have been perused.
14. The claim in W.P.(C) No.5161/2005 for `60,000/- towards interest
for the delay of 32 years in re-fixation of pay on notional basis, is not
understandable. The petitioner was only granted notional pay fixation with
effect from the year 1970 but without any financial benefits and which
accrued only from the date of actual joining as Assistant Manager. It is
thus not understandable as to on what amount interest of `60,000/- is being
claimed or as to how the said amount has been computed.
15. Similarly, in view of the post of Deputy Manager being a selection
post, the basis of the claim of the petitioner of `70,000/- in the other writ
petition on account of notional increments upon notional empanelment as
Deputy Manager with effect from 1985 is not understandable. The
petitioner having not been promoted as a Deputy Manager, merely because
his name was in the panel for promotion, would not be entitled to
increments with effect from the date of empanelment.
16. There is no merit in either of the writ petitions, the same are
dismissed. I refrain from imposing any costs on the petitioner.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 10, 2011
bs
