Rajpal vs Union Of India & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 3012 Del

$~6
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                         Judgement delivered on: 09.07.2014

+                    W.P.(C) 5017/2013
RAJPAL                                                      ..... Petitioner

                     Versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS                                        ..... Respondents

ADVOCATES APPEARED FOR THE PARTIES For the petitioner: Ms Deepti Gupta, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr Himanshu Bajaj, CGSC for R-1.

Mr Sunil Narula, Advocate for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

1. This is a writ petition which seeks to challenge the Office Memorandum (in short O.M.) No. F.No. 10-16/96-CCRH/Estt./PF 2518 dated 01.05.2013, whereby the petitioner's representations dated 16.11.2012 and 15.02.2013, regarding payment of arrears of pay and allowances as per revised pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 and Rs. 10000-15200 was rejected. 1.1 In addition to the above, the petitioner has also sought a direction qua the respondents for release/ refund of salary benefits qua the post of Assistant Research Officer (in short ARO) in his favour, in terms of O.M. dated 03.09.2008 and 30.04.2010 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 till 18.02.2003 along

with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the period is wrongly mentioned in prayer clause as 01.01.1996 to 17.02.2003. This aspect has been factored in my observation above.

1.2 The second prayer, essentially, relates to in situ benefits which, the petitioner claims, should have been made available to him.

2. The grievance in the present petition revolves around a short point. In order to deal with the issues raised in the petition the following brief facts are required to be noticed:

2.1 The petitioner, who was inducted in service of respondent no.2, i.e., the Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy (in short the Council); joined as a Research Assistant (Homoeopathy) [in short RA(H)] and, was given the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300, as per the 4th Central Pay Commission (in short 4th CPC) w.e.f. 13.08.1987.

2.2 The Council, evidently, introduced a Career Advancement Scheme, vide order dated 22.12.1995. The scheme envisaged, inter alia, upgradation of post of all "eligible" RAs to the post of Assistant Research Officer (in short ARO). Order in this regard was passed by the Council on 10.01.1996. 2.3 The petitioner, however, was promoted under the Career Advancement Scheme as an Assistant Research Officer (Homeopathy) w.e.f. 24.12.1996, on the recommendation of the DPC, as per the provisions of the then subsisting recruitment rules.

2.4 To be noted, the pay scale appended to the post of ARO(H) was Rs. 2000-3500, as per the 4th CPC.

3. The petitioner being aggrieved, filed a writ petition in this court being: WP(C) 4027/1999. This writ petition was filed on 01.07.1999. The

petitioner, essentially, claimed financial benefits appended to the post of ARO(H); albeit w.e.f. 22.12.1995.

3.1 The respondents opposed the claim made by the petitioner essentially on the ground that the financial benefit was available only to those RAs (H), who were in possession of a "degree" in homoeopathy. 3.2 It is not disputed that the petitioner had acquired only a diploma in homoeopathy; which was a course of a duration of four years. The petitioner admittedly completed his diploma in Homeopathy, in1984.

4. Evidently, in the writ petition, what attained criticality were the contents of two resolutions dated 09.03.1990 and 13.03.1992 passed by the Council. The first relevant resolution was passed by the Council at its meeting held on 09.03.1990. The second resolution, which concerned the Court, was the one, passed on, 13.03.1992.

4.1 In the resolution passed on 09.03.1990, the Council, evidently, decided that those having medical qualifications in homoeopathy (in a course of four years duration), which were acquired prior to the enforcement of Homoeopathy (Diploma Course), Regulations 1983, (in short 1983 Regulations), and were included in the second schedule to the Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973, would be treated as equivalent to a degree.

5. As would be evident from the above, all those persons who had not obtained their qualifications, that is, passed a diploma course in the terms set out above, prior to the enforcement of the 1983 regulations, were excluded from the fray. The petitioner, undeniably, passed the diploma course, only in, 1984.

6. The second resolution, which is, dated 13.03.1992 sought to extend the benefit not only to those persons who had completed diploma course

prior to 1983 but also to those who had enrolled for the diploma course prior to 11.05.1983 and, were pursuing, the said course but had not completed the same.

7. This court by its judgement dated 18.02.2003 granted the petitioner, in effect, the benefit of the second resolution. The court expressly rejected the stand of the UOI, that the subsequent resolution dated 13.03.1992, would not, have any effect. Consequently, the following operative directions were issued by the court, in paragraph 16 of its judgement dated 18.02.2003:

"....16. I am thus of the considered view that it is not open for respondent No.1 now to state that subsequent resolution dated 13.03.1992 would have no effect. Consequently the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that diploma/ certificate of four years' duration attained by the petitioner in Homeopathy in the year 1984 is equivalent to a Degree in Homeopathy for service benefits and thus the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of upgradation of post of Research Assistant to the post of Assistant Research Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 w.e.f. 22.12.1995. The petitioner would be entitled to the consequential relief of his seniority being fixed accordingly as also for the benefit of the future promotion. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner approached this court more than 3 years after the grievance arose in favour of the petitioner and more than 2-1/2 years after the petitioner was promoted the petitioner is not entitled to any arrears of salary or interest thereon......" (emphasis is mine)

8. What has triggered, an unnecessary controversy, is that, part of the operative directions, whereby the petitioner's entitlement to arrears of salary and interest was excised, for the reason, that the petitioner, had not approached this court with due expedition.

9. Based on the aforesaid, the respondents denied the petitioner, both revision of pay, in respect of which an order was issued on 03.09.2008, and

in situ benefits which were made effective for all eligible employees with effect from 23.03.2001. Notably, O.M. dated 01.05.2013, which has been impugned, squarely adverts to the fact that the petitioner's pay scale had been revised w.e.f. 1.1.1996; albeit subject to audit verification. As a matter of fact, counsel for the petitioner submits that salary was paid to the petitioner as per the revised scale till 2012 whereafter, it was sought to be adjusted on erroneous reading of the judgment dated 18.02.2003, that even these arrears, would be paid only from that date, i.e., 18.02.2003.

10. In so far as benefits under the in situ promotion scheme were concerned, these were also denied to the petitioner on the basis of the same reasoning. It is though, not disputed that the petitioner falls in the category of medical doctors.

11. Having regard to the above, it is quite clear to me that all that the judgement of the Single Judge envisaged, when it denied the relief of arrears of salary and interest thereon to the petitioner, was to exclude the period between the introduction of the Career Advancement Scheme, which was, 22.12.1995, and the date on which the petitioner, any which ways, was promoted to the post of ARO, which is, 24.12.1996. In addition, the petitioner was denied relief by way of interest on the arrears of salary for this period, which would have ordinarily been directed to be paid till the date of the judgement and thereafter, if salary had been directed to be paid, in the first instance by the court. The judgement dated 18.02.2003, could not have covered benefits which were introduced after the said judgement, though payable for the period prior to the judgement.

12. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the respondents cannot

deny to the petitioner, pecuniary benefits of either the pay revision or, those available to him under the in situ promotion scheme. Therefore, to the extent O.M. dated 01.05.2013 declines pecuniary benefits to the petitioner qua revision of pay scale and those payable to him under the in situ promotion scheme, it is set aside. The petitioner, will consequently be paid the benefits sought for in the present writ petition.

13. Since, according to the counsel for the petitioner, deductions vis-a-vis the aforesaid benefits were made, only from 20.03.2012, the interest on the amounts so deducted shall be paid at the rate of 9% per annum (simple) from that date till the date of payment. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

14. Dasti.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J JULY 09, 2014 kk