Delhi High Court
Shandar Husain Kazmi And Anr. vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr. on 27 August, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Decided on: 27.08.2014
% W.P.(C) 4360/2008
SHANDAR HUSAIN KAZMI AND ANR. ..... Petitioner
Through : Sh. Abishek Kaul, Advocate
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....
Respondents
Through : Ms. Zubeda Begum, Adv. for
GNCTD a/w Ms. Sana Ansari
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
VIPIN SANGHI, J. (OPEN COURT)
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the Central Administrative
Tribunal (CAT) dated 07.05.2007 in O.A. No. 1713/2006. In the
application, he urged that denial of second financial upgradation in the pay
scale of `6,500-10,500/- was contrary to the Assured Career Progression
Scheme (ACP) applicable to the Government of National Capital Territory
of Delhi ("GNCTD") employees.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was appointed as
Workshop/Laboratory Attendant by the GNCTD on 22.06.1971. He was
subsequently promoted as Laboratory Assistant on 09.07.1991 in the revised
pay scale of `4,000-6,000/-. He was subsequently placed in the pay scale of
`5,000-8,000/- on 23.09.1999. The ACP scheme was introduced with effect
from 09.08.1999. The petitioner complained that his juniors were granted
second financial upgradation in the pay scale of `6,500-10,500/- from the
grade of `5,000-8,000/- on 14.09.2001 w.e.f. 09.08.1999 under the ACP
scheme. He represented to the respondent authorities, claiming that he
should be given similar benefit on 31.07.2005. Upon the respondent's denial
of his entitlement, he approached the CAT with an application.
3. The CAT rejected the petitioner's claim for grant of second financial
upgradation in the pay scale of `6,500-10,500/-, accepting the GNCTD's
arguments that, in fact, the petitioner's placement in the pay scale of `5,000-
8,000/- was a second promotion, which disentitled him to the benefit of
second ACP.
4. The petitioner contends - and his counsel urges - that the CAT's
findings with respect to the grant of second promotion was, in the facts of
this case, erroneous. It was submitted that the petitioner's first promotion
was as Laboratory Assistant on 09.07.1991. For that post, the requisite
qualifications were "matriculation with science subject". The petitioner
undoubtedly was possessed of this qualification; his juniors were not so
qualified. However, they were promoted as Workshop Inspectors in the
higher pay scale of `5,000-8,000/-. Upon the GNCTD being made aware of
this anomaly of unqualified juniors being granted a more favourable
treatment, the petitioner was also granted the same pay scale of `5,000-
8,000/-.
5. In these circumstances, emphasized learned counsel, the petitioner
was beneficiary of only one promotion, contrary to the CAT's findings.
Learned counsel relied upon the pleadings of the parties before the CAT in
support of his submission that the grant of pay scale of `5,000-8,000/- did
not amount to promotion or up gradation, but assignment of pay scale which
was due to the petitioner as a better qualified employee, as opposed to his
juniors, who were unqualified but were given the benefit of pay grades
higher than his own.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the ACP scheme
clearly envisioned that financial upgradation would be purely personal to the
employee and would not have any relevance to his seniority position. Other
conditions attached to the ACP scheme were that the individual ought not to
have been beneficiary of two promotions. In this case, it was contended that
the promotion of the junior was because under the Recruitment Rules,
Workshop Attendants/Laboratory Attendants not possessed of the
qualification of matriculation in science, could not be promoted as
Laboratory Assistants. Consequently, the only option with the GNCTD was
to promote them in the grade of Workshop Inspector in the pay scale of
`5,000-8,000/-. Learned counsel submitted that in these circumstances, the
petitioner could not have received the benefit of second financial
upgradation merely on the ground that his juniors were given a wrong
promotion. Reliance was placed upon Point no. 8 of the ACP scheme in this
regard which reads as follows:
"The Financial Upgradation under the ACP Scheme shall be
purely personal to the employee and shall have no relevance to his
seniority position. As such there shall be no additional financial
upgradation for the senior employee on the ground that junior
employee in this grade has got higher pay scale under the ACP
scheme."
7. It is evident from the above discussion that this Court is called upon
to decide whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of second
financial upgradation. In order to decide this issue, it is necessary to see
whether the grant of pay scale of `5,000-8,000/- to the petitioner, in the
circumstances, of the case, was in fact a promotion.
8. The present case is squarely covered by our judgment dated 19.08.2014 in
Krishan Kumar vs. Government of NCT of Delhi W.P.(C) No. 8422/2008
arising out of OA No. 1711/2006 decided by the common order which is
challenge in the present petition.
9. In the light of the above discussion, the writ petition has to succeed
and is, accordingly allowed. The respondents are hereby directed to grant to
the petitioner the benefit of the second ACP on the date when it became due
to him, or on the date of the introduction of the ACP Scheme, whichever is
later, with the necessary differential pay, emoluments and consequential
benefits. The necessary and consequential orders in respect of the pay scale
and other benefits shall be issued within four weeks from today.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
AUGUST 27, 2014
