Delhi High Court
Shri Kumar Bajaj & Ors. vs U.O.I & Ors. on 19 August, 2013
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on August 07, 2013
Judgment Delivered on August 19, 2013
+ W.P.(C) 1302/2002
SHRI KUMAR BAJAJ & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Represented by: Petitioner No.1 in person
versus
U.O.I & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.
1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated
October 17, 2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi (the Tribunal) in Original Application
No.2852/2001, whereby the Tribunal had dismissed the Original
Application filed by the petitioners herein.
2. The short question that arises for our consideration is whether
the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Second Financial
Upgradation in the absence of their possessing the essential educational
qualification for the next higher post of Milk Distribution Officer which
is in the grade of `6500-10500.
3. The petitioners who are Cash Clerks/Assistant Cashiers
contended that they are eligible for grant of financial upgradation in
accordance with the scheme prescribed by the Government on August
09, 1999. There is no dispute that they have been granted the first
financial upgradation after 12 years of service.
4. The issue only relates to the grant of second financial
upgradation which under the said scheme was given after completion of
24 years of service. It is not in dispute that the same has been denied to
the petitioners. According to them, some of them have put in 30 years
of service. The respondent No.1 i.e. Delhi Milk Scheme has issued an
order dated February 22, 2001, wherein it is inter-alia stipulated that the
second ACP in the grade of `6500-10500 attached to the post of Milk
Distribution Officer shall be granted subject to the condition that Cash
Clerks who possesses the essential educational qualifications of degree
from a recognized University as per the Recruitment Rules.
5. The petitioners objected to such a stipulation. They relied
upon the condition No.1 laid down in the scheme dated August 09,
1999 which inter-alia provided placement in the higher pay scale only
to the Government Servant concerned on personal basis and shall,
therefore, neither amount to functional/regular promotion nor would
require creation of new post for the purpose.
6. The Tribunal in the impugned order relied upon condition
No.6 laid down in the Annexure I of the Scheme dated August 09, 1999
which inter-alia stipulated fulfilment of promotion norms like Bench
Mark, Departmental Examination, Seniority cum Fitness in the case of
Group 'D' employees etc. for grant of financial upgradation. The
condition No.6 is reproduced hereunder:
"Fulfilment of promotion norms (benchmark,
departmental examination, seniority-cum-fitness in
the case of Group 'D' employees, etc.) for grant of
financial upgradations, performance of such
duties as are entrusted to the employees together
with retention of old designations, financial
upgradations as personal to the incumbent for the
stated purposes and restrictions of the ACP
Scheme for financial and certain other benefits
(House Building Advance, allotment of
Government accommodation, advances etc.) only
without conferring any privileges related to higher
status (e.g., invitation to ceremonial functions,
deputations to higher posts, etc.) shall be ensured
for grant of benefits under the ACP Scheme."
7. The Tribunal was of the view that since the degree from a
recognized University is pre-requisite for promotion to the post of Milk
Distribution Officer in the pay grade of `6500-10500 in accordance
with the Recruitment Rules, the petitioners are not entitled to the
financial upgradation.
8. We agree with the view taken by the Tribunal, more so when
the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the educational qualification
of degree from a recognized University is pre-requisite for promotion.
That apart perusal of the writ petition shows that the petitioners are not
denying the fact that a degree from a recognized University is pre-
requisite for promotion. Their case in the writ petition is primarily is
that persons junior to them with a degree qualification have been given
the benefit of Second Financial Upgradation. It is a circumstance which
has arisen because of the peculiar condition laid down in the
Recruitment Rules and the ACP Scheme, as framed by the Government
of India. No benefit of Second Financial Upgradation would accrue to
the petitioners under the ACP scheme, in view of the fact that they do
not possess requisite educational qualifications for promotion.
9. We do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly
dismiss the same.
10. No costs.
(V.KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
AUGUST 19, 2013
km
