Indian Council Of Medical ... vs Kv Ratanakar & Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 1686 Del

$~11
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Date of decision: April 12, 2013

+                         W.P.(C) 172/2012

       INDIAN COUNCIL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH ..... Petitioner
                    Represented by: Ms.Neha Bhatnagar, Advocate

                          versus

       KV RATANAKAR & ORS                        ..... Respondents
                   Represented by: Mr.Sudhir Kulshreshtha,
                   Advocate for R-1.
                   Ms.Anindita Popli, Advocate for Mr.S.Aravinder,
                   Advocate for applicant in CM No.6039/2012.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

CM No.379/2012 (Addl.documents) Allowed.

WP(C)172/2012

1. Issue which arose for consideration before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1308/2007 filed by K.V.Ratanakar was whether upon rationalization of scale of pay of the Library Staff requiring Librarian to be placed in the pay scale `2000-3500 (then current scale held by them being `1400-2300) would amount to promotion. The issue arose in the context of the ACP Scheme then in vogue requiring first financial upgradation if within 12 years promotion could not be earned followed by another financial upgradation on rendering 24 years service if second promotion could not be earned. Needless to state, if placement in the higher scale would be treated

as a promotion, this would impact the Assured Career Progression Scheme benefit.

2. The Tribunal debated the issue with reference to the term 'promotion' holding that it means advancement to a higher scale as well as to a higher post, in the light of two decisions of the Supreme Court reported as (1994) 5 SCC 392 Tarsem Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. and (1996) 1 SCC 562 State of Rajasthan vs. Fateh Chand Soni.

3. With respect to the decision in Tarsem Singh's case the Tribunal found that issue pertained to Superintendents, including Tarsem Singh, in the Department of Labour, Government of Punjab. The post was in the pay scale `350-450 revised to `2000-3500. Claim for promotion to the next above post was considered with reference to Rule 8(1)(a)(i) of the applicable Rules. The Tribunal, and in our opinion correctly, distinguished the applicability of the said decision inasmuch as it involved a debate into the concept of what would be a promotion in the hierarchical cadre. The decision did not concern itself with cadre re-organization.

4. The decision in Fateh Chand (supra) was distinguished by the Tribunal with reference to the fact that persons holding the same post were eligible to be placed in the selection scale as per criteria of seniority-cum- merit. Since it was a case of merit having a role to play, the Supreme Court held that it would be a case of promotion. The Tribunal has correctly distinguished said decision vis-a-vis a case where on account of rationalization of the scale of pay, posts are placed in the higher scale of pay, without any appraisal.

5. Be that as it may, we are not dealing with the issue in great detail for the reason decision dated January 16, 2008 passed by the Tribunal in favour of K.V.Ratanakar has been challenged after more than 4 years. Instant writ petition was filed in the year 2012. We note that the impugned decision was

implemented with respect to K.V.Ratanakar way back on July 14, 2008.

6. The petitioner had expressed an apprehension that if the law declared by the impugned decision is allowed to stand it would have cascading effect for the reason large number of similarly placed individuals would be seeking benefit thereof. This led the Court to issue notice in the writ petition recording expressly that the Court was not inclined to disturb the benefit which respondent No.1 was receiving for almost 4 years.

7. The bogie of large number of similarly situated persons raising claims has been busted evidenced by the fact that we find only two such similarly placed persons who may possibly have a claim. They are Mrs.R.Sundarammal and Mr.Naresh Aggarwal.

8. The petitioner has placed reliance upon a subsequent decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal pronounced on July 21, 2008 disposing of O.A.No.2279/2007 filed by one Malik Singh Yadav, which has been dismissed. The petitioner states that the view taken in the decision under challenge runs contrary to the view taken by the Tribunal in the decision dated July 21, 2008.

9. If this be so, we see no binding precedent to tie the hands of the petitioner. If someone else raises a similar claim, the petitioner has a point to argue with respect to the decision dated July 21, 2008 in Malik Singh Yadav's case.

10. However, even with respect to that a caveat needs to be put. As we are informed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, Malik Singh Yadav challenged the decision of the Tribunal by filing a writ petition in this Court but did not press the same to its logical conclusion since he was assured that similar benefit as granted to respondent No.1 would be given to him; but unfortunately Malik Singh Yadav could not take the matter any further since he died.

11. Noting the facts as above, finding no injury being caused to the petitioner on the apprehension of recurring impact on its finances on account of large number of employees raising similar claims, we dismissed the writ petition on account of delay and laches as also the fact that before the writ petition was filed the petitioner unequivocally implemented the decision in favour of the respondent No.1

12. No costs.

CM Nos.6039/2012 & 11600/2012 (impleadment)

Dismissed as infructuous.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(PRATIBHA RANI) JUDGE APRIL 12, 2013 skb