Delhi High Court
Om Prakash Raheja 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) 8420/2008
OM PRAKASH RAHEJA ..... Petitioner
Through : Sh. Abishek Kaul, Advocate.
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....
Respondents
Through : Ms. Shobana Takiar, Adv. for
GNCTD
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 02.11.2007 in O.A. No.
352/2007. In the application, he urged that denial of second financial
upgradation in the pay scale of Rs.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 08.02.1973. He
was subsequently promoted as Laboratory Assistant on 12.03.1993 in
the revised pay scale of Rs.4,000-6,000/-. He was subsequently placed
in the pay scale of Rs.5,000-8,000/- on 05.04.2000. The ACP scheme
was introduced with effect from 09.08.1999 vide O.M. No.
35034/1/97-Estt(D). The petitioner complained that two of his juniors
- Rajender Kumar and Bharat Tiwari were granted second financial
upgradation in the pay scale of Rs.6,500-10,500/- from the grade of
Rs.5,000-8,000/- on 14.9.2001 under the ACP scheme. The petitioner
filed OA No. 2011/2006 in the CAT, seeking the quashing of the order
no. F.127 (16)/2001/TE/AD/1253 dated 14.09.2001 alongwith order
no. F.127 (19)/2000/TE/AD/525 dated 13.04.2004 and order no.
FT.81/E1/AD/2003/798 dated 10.4.2004 and further seeking grant of
financial benefit under ACP scheme. The CAT directed the
respondent to consider the grievances of the petitioner and treat the
OA as representation and to dispose off the same within three months.
Upon the respondent's denial of his entitlement by order dated
22.9.2006, he approached the CAT with a fresh application.
3. The CAT rejected the petitioner's claim for grant of second
financial upgradation in the pay scale of Rs.6,500-10,500/-, accepting
the GNCTD's arguments that, in fact, the petitioner's placement in the
pay scale of Rs.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 12.03.1993. 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 Rs.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 Rs.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 Rs.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
said two individuals, i.e. Rajinder Kumar and Bharat Tiwari 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
Rs.5,000-8,000/-. Learned counsel submitted that in these
circumstances, the petitioner could not have received the benefit of
second financial upgrdation 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.
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
