Delhi High Court
Mohd. Inam vs Sr. Divisional Manager And Ors. on 23 May, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
$~R-3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6393/2002
% 23rd May, 2013
MOHD. INAM ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shiv Prakash Pandey and Mr.
Raghav Pandey, Advs.
VERSUS
SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER AND ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Kamal Mehta, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. Irrespective of the prayer Clauses of the writ petition, on behalf
of the petitioner the only relief pressed before me at the time of hearing is
that petitioner on his re-appointment with the respondent No. 1 on
27.01.1993 should get the basic pay of Rs. 1410 and not the scale of Rs.
930-1410-2010 as granted by the appointment letter.
2. On behalf of the petitioner to claim the benefit of the basic pay
of Rs. 1410 reliance is placed upon the office order of the respondent No.
1 dated 16.03.1990 and the relevant portion of which reads as under:
W.P.(C) 6393/2002 Page 1
"The fixation of pay on absorption in the Class III post
will be in the following manner:
(i) The basic pay will be initially fixed at the lowest
stage in the scale of pay of Assistant or Record
Clerk as the case may be and thereafter one
increment for every two years completed service
as a Development Officer may be granted (a part
or a fraction of such period shall not be counted for
the purposes). However, the basic pay to be fixed
shall be not more than the basic pay he was
drawing as a Development Officer at the time of
termination. Further, if the basic pay he was
drawing as a Development Officer at the time of
termination was not in the scale of pay of the Class
III post to which he is being reappointed, the basic
pay in Class III post shall be fixed at a stage which
is just below the basic pay he was drawing as a
Development Officer at the time of his
termination."
3. When we see the relevant portion of the circular of respondent
No. 1 dated 16.03.1990 it becomes clear that if the person who earlier
stood retired is re-appointed on Class III post then such a person will not
get basic pay more than what he was drawing as a Development Officer
at the time of termination. In case the re-employed employee was not in
the scale of Class III post when he earlier retired, and now to which grade
he is re-appointed, the basic pay which is at just below the basic pay
W.P.(C) 6393/2002 Page 2
which he was drawing as Development Officer at the time of his earlier
termination will be paid at the time of his fresh employment in Class-III.
4. It was therefore necessary for the petitioner to plead that what
was his pay when he first ordinarily retired from the respondent No. 1 on
08.11.1983. Petitioner also had to state whether he was in a Class III
post or not. A reading of the writ petition shows that no details are given
as to what was the pay of the petitioner when he firstly was compulsorily
retired on 08.11.1983. Only that pay is given in terms of the circular
dated 16.03.1990, which the petitioner drew when he was first
compulsorily retired. In case the petitioner was lower than the Class-III
employee then petitioner had to be put one stage below the Class-III
employee at the time of his re-employment. No facts are however found
in the writ petition on all these aspects. Therefore, simply making of
representation cannot help the petitioner because petitioner cannot get the
alleged benefit as claimed unless facts are pleaded to show as to how he
satisfied the factual requirements as contained in the circular dated
16.03.1990.
5. In view of above, the petitioner has failed to make out a case as
to how he is entitled to benefit of the circular dated 16.03.1990.
W.P.(C) 6393/2002 Page 3
Petitioner was appointed in his second employment with respondent No.
1 as Record Clerk (Class-III) in specific pay scale Rs. 930-1410-2010
and therefore petitioner cannot get any other pay unless petitioner had
pleaded and established facts to satisfy the requirements of the aforesaid
relevant para of the circular dated 16.03.1990.
6. I may note that the respondent No. 1 in its counter-affidavit has
stated that petitioner when he was re-employed in January, 1993 got a
scale of pay which was in fact higher than what he used to receive when
he stood compulsorily retired on 08.11.1983.
7. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, which is
accordingly dismissed, leaving parties to bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
May 23, 2013
cl
W.P.(C) 6393/2002 Page 4
