Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Anr. vs Anil Verma on 23 November, 2012
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 23.11.2012
W.P.(C) 2789/2012 & CM 6016/2012
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Petitioners
versus
V.K.SALDHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
and
W.P.(C) 2790/2012 & CM 6018/2012
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Petitioners
versus
ANIL VERMA ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in these cases:
For the Petitioners : Mr Rajinder Nischal
For the Respondents : Mr Ajesh Luthra in WP(C) No.2789/2012.
Mr Deepak Verma in WP(C) No.2790/2012.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. These writ petitions raise a common issue and, therefore, are being
disposed of together. The writ petitions arise out of the common order dated
14.11.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,
New Delhi in OA No.3783/2010 and OA No.3035/2011. By virtue of the
said order dated 14.11.2011, the respondents herein and the applicants before
the Tribunal (except Mr N.C.Rai) were granted the benefit of financial
upgradation under the ACP (Assured Career Progression) Scheme by
counting their past service prior to their being declared surplus and prior to
their redeployment. Subsequently, Mr N.C.Rai also filed a review
application being RA No.31/20112 and he was also granted the benefit by
virtue of the order dated 09.07.2012.
2. Before us, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance
on the DoPT's OM dated 10.02.2000. In fact he placed reliance on the
following portion of the said OM:-
"However, if the appointment is made to higher pay scale
either as on direct recruitment or on absorption (transfer) basis
or first on deputation basis and later on absorbed (on transfer
basis), such appointment shall be treated as direct recruitment
and past service/promotion shall not count for benefits under
ACPS."
3. He submitted that this OM would apply to the respondents and
therefore their appointments would have to be treated as being by way of
direct recruitment and their past service would not count for benefits under
ACP scheme.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended
before us that the said OM does not apply to them at all because theirs was
not a case of direct recruitment or absorption. They had in fact been declared
surplus and then redeployed and such a situation has been specifically dealt
with in condition 14 of the Conditions for grant of benefits under the ACP
Scheme itself. The said condition 14 read as under:-
"14. In case of an employee declared surplus in his/her
organization and in case of transfers including unilateral
transfer on request, the regular service rendered by him/her in
the previous organization shall be counted along with his/her
regular service in his/her new organization for the purpose of
giving financial upgradation under the Scheme;"
5. It is apparent that it deals specifically with the case of employees who
had been declared surplus which is the very case of the respondents.
Consequently, condition 14 would squarely apply to the respondents and if
that be the case, the regular service rendered by such employees in their
previous organizations prior to their being declared surplus would be
counted along with their regular service in the new organization for the
purpose of giving financial upgradation under the Scheme. We are entirely in
agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
respondents as also the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. The case of
the respondents is squarely covered by condition 14 of the Conditions for
grant of benefits under the ACP Scheme and it is not covered by the said OM
dated 10.02.2000 which only deals with direct recruitments or absorptions.
6. In view of the foregoing the writ petitions are dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
NOVEMBER 23, 2012
mk
