I.C.A.R & Anr. vs Amar Nath & Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 64 Del

$~R-3
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                         Date of decision: January 4, 2013

+                               W.P.(C) No.3394/2001
       I.C.A.R & ANR.                                         ..... Petitioner
                  Represented by:          Mr.Gagan Mathur, Advocate.
                       versus
       AMAR NATH & ORS                                        ..... Respondents

Represented by: Mr.Chittaranjan, Advocate for R.1 CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(ORAL)

1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned decision dated November 02, 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal directing writ petitioner to pay salary to the respondent in the scale applicable to a Cook.

2. It is not in dispute that the writ petition, I.C.A.R. through its Subordinate Office I.A.R.I. sent a requisition to the Employment Exchange to forward names of persons registered with the Employment Exchange and desirous of being employed as a Cook. Amongst others, the Employment Exchange forwarded the name of the respondent who had got himself registered with the Employment Exchange and on March 5, 1981, I.A.R.I. conducted an interview and selected respondent as a Cook and after appointing him started paying salary to him in the scale applicable to a Beldar.

3. Now, it is not in dispute that Beldars are not given any official accommodation, but the respondent was. The reason was that the respondent had to cook breakfast, lunch and dinner apart from preparing tea.

This was the reason he was required in the premises of the campus.

4. This led the respondent to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal highlighting unfair employment practice adopted by I.C.A.R. i.e. requisitioning people for the post of a Cook but paying them salary as a Beldar notwithstanding that post of Cook is sanctioned in I.C.A.R. and its Subordinate Office I.A.R.I.

5. The Tribunal has found favour with the respondent.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that in the reply filed by the petitioner to the O.A. filed by the respondent it was categorically pleaded that neither I.C.A.R. nor I.A.R.I. has any sanctioned post of a Cook.

7. Well! This is true. But it is only a pleading.

8. As against a mere pleading of the writ petition, the respondent filed before the Tribunal, and has annexed the same in the writ petition as Annexure R-1 to the counter affidavit filed, a 'HANDBOOK OF TECHNICAL SERVICES - ICAR'. Appendix- II in the Hand Book lists the various posts under ICAR, and at Sl.No.102 is the post of a Cook. Annexed as Annexure R-2 to the writ petition is an Office Order dated August 1, 1995 issued by I.C.A.R. re-designating the posts under it and pertaining to non-ministerial and non-technical staff, at Sl.No.17 is the post of Chief Cook in the pay scale `1400-2300/- and at Sl.No.19 is the post of a Cook in the pay scale `950-1500/-; and this totally destroys the case of the writ petitioner. As against the mere assertions in the pleadings by the writ petitioner that it does not have any post of a Cook, the respondent has following to project:-

       (i)     HANDBOOK OF TECHNICAL SERVICES- ICAR;
       (ii)    Office Order dated August 1, 1995 and its Annexures;

(iii) Requisition sent to the Employment Exchange to forward names with address of applicants registered as Cooks.

(iv) Selection held to appoint a Cook;

(v) Residential accommodation provide only to Cooks and not to Beldars;

9. These are our reasons to dismiss the writ petition, which we do imposing costs of `5000/- which shall be paid by the petitioner to the respondent within six weeks' from today. The costs would be paid along with the salary payable in the month of March, 2013.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(VEENA BIRBAL) JUDGE JANUARY 04, 2013 skb