Delhi High Court
Gulzar Singh vs Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management ... on 4 February, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.667/2013
% February 04, 2013
GULZAR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ehraz Zafar, Advocate.
versus
DELHI SIKH GURUDWARA MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the
order dated 31.10.2012 passed by the Delhi School Tribunal dismissing the
appeal of the petitioner herein. The petitioner had challenged his reversion
from the post of Transport Incharge to the post of Driver in the respondent
No.2-school.
2. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner made a statement and
admitted that his so-called reversion from the post of Transport Incharge to
the Driver did not cause him any loss of pay/monetary benefits. This is
referred to in para 4 of the impugned order under appeal and the said para 4
reads as under:-
"4. During the course of arguments, the Appellant who was
present in the Court in person stated on oath that even after the
issuance of the impugned orders dated 22.07.2009, the Respondent
School had not reduced his scale of pay. The statement of the
Appellant was separately recorded. The same is reproduced
below:
"Present appeal has been filed by me against the orders
dated 22.07.2009. Vide impugned orders the
Respondent school had reduced my rank from Transport
Incharge to the post of Driver in the Respondent School.
I further state that even after the issuance of the
impugned order, I continued getting the pay scale of Rs.
4,500-125-7,000, the scale of pay which I was enjoying
while working as Transport Incharge. In other words I
had not suffered any financial loss in my salary after the
orders dated 22.07.2009 referred to above, were passed."
The Tribunal has dismissed the appeal on the ground that since
there was no financial loss to the petitioner, there does not arise the question
of reduction of rank so as to prejudice the petitioner.
3. Counsel for the respondent No.2 informs me that the petitioner
has already been terminated from services on 17.1.2012, and to which
counsel for the petitioner states that the said order is already under challenge
before the Delhi School Tribunal. I am therefore not required to go into the
aspect of termination.
4. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of K.
Gopaul Vs. The Union of India and Ors. AIR 1967 SC 1864 that where a
person as a head of the department is posted elsewhere not as a head of the
department, however, there is no reduction in the pay of such person, it
cannot be said that there is a reduction in rank of such a person.
5. Since in the present case the petitioner has not suffered any loss
of pay on account of change of his duties from Transport Incharge to Driver,
relying upon the judgment in the case of K. Gopaul (supra), it is held that
there is no reduction in the rank which prejudices the petitioner. There is
therefore no error in the judgment of the Tribunal.
6. The writ petition, being without any merit, is therefore
dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
FEBRUARY 04, 2013
Ne
