Delhi High Court
Government Of Nct Delhi And Ors. vs Narender Singh on 5 November, 2014
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 05.11.2014
+ W.P.(C) 1378/2014, C.M. NO.2879/2014
GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI AND ORS.
..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat with Ms.
Latika Chaudhary and Ms. Gunjan Bansal,
Advocates.
Versus
NARENDER SINGH ..... Respondents
Through: Sh. Sachin Chauhan, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)
%
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 29.11.2011 in O.A.
No.4117/2010 and the order of 16.01.2004 preferred by the
applicants/respondents.
2. The applicant respondent was redeployed in the GNCTD
on account of the closure of the Delhi State Industrial
Development Corporation ("DSIDC"), an autonomous GNCTD
public sector unit. He was initially appointed on 01.01.1980 in
W.P.(C) 1378/2014 Page 1
the DSIDC and was subsequently transferred to the Delhi State
Mineral Development Corporation ("DSMDC") in 1985. On the
closure of that corporation, he was absorbed by the GNCTD - in
terms of the latter's prevailing policies, as a surplus LDC with
effect from 01.06.1994. The applicant had to approach the CAT
on account of the GNCTD's position that the past service
rendered by him in DSIDC and subsequently DSMDC could not
be taken into account for the purpose of Assured Career
Progression Scheme (ACPS) and the subsequent benefit under
the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS). The
CAT accepted the applicants' contentions and held that such
previous service could be taken into consideration for
ACPS/MACPS benefits.
3. It is urged that the absorption order expressly stated in
Clause 7 that redeployed or surplus officials would not be entitled
to past service benefits for the purpose of seniority and
promotion. Learned counsel also relied upon the condition of
Clause 10 of the MACPS which is to the following effect:
"10. Past service rendered by a Government
employee in a State Government/statutory
body/Autonomous body/Public Sector organization,
before appointment in the Government shall not be
counted towards Regular Service."
4. It was argued that in these circumstances, the applicant was
not entitled to relief which the CAT granted to him. Learned
counsel also relied upon a previous ruling of a Division Bench in
Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Rati Ram and Ors. W.P.(C) 6959/2011
W.P.(C) 1378/2014 Page 2
and other cases, (decided on 06.03.2013). The applicant relies
upon para 5 of the MACPS and urges that the ruling in Rati Ram
(supra) would not apply and that instead the CAT correctly
applied the decision in GNCT v. Dinesh Verma [W.P.(C)
5145/2005 (decided on 21.03.2011)].
5. Clause 7 of the 01.06.1994 redeployment order in the case
of applicant reads as follows:
"7. The surplus employees are not entitled to
benefit of past service rendered in the previous
organization for the purpose of their seniority in the
new organization such employees are to be treated as
fresh entrants in the matter of their seniority/promotion
etc."
6. Clauses 9 and 10 of the MACP read as follows:
"9. 'Regular service' for the purposes of the
MACPS shall commence from the date of joining of a
post in direct entry grade on a regular basis either on
direct recruitment basis or on absorption/re-
employment basis. Service rendered on ad hoc/contract
basis before regular appointment on pre-appointment
training shall not be taken into reckoning. However,
past continuous regular service in another Government
Department in a post carrying same grade pay prior to
regular appointment in a new Department, without a
break, shall also be counted towards qualifying
regular service for the purposes of MACPS only (and
not for the regular promotions). However, benefits
under the MACPS in such cases shall not be
considered till the satisfactory completion of the
probation period in the new post.
10. Past service rendered by a Government
employee in a State Government/statutory
body/Autonomous body/Public Sector organization,
W.P.(C) 1378/2014 Page 3
before appointment in the Government shall not be
counted towards Regular Service."
7. The ruling in Rati Ram (supra) was a case where surplus
employees in private schools or government aided schools were
absorbed in the Government on account of operation of Rule
47(2). The Division Bench ruling - apart from reading of para 15
- is that Rule 47(2) protects only salary and allowances last drawn
of an employee of a private, recognised, aided school and that
further benefits cannot be claimed. To our mind, the ruling in
Dinesh Verma (supra) is more appropriate to the fact situation
here. There too, like in the present instance, the official was a
public employee engaged by the GNCTD public sector
undertaking. Upon being declared surplus, he was redeployed by
the GNCTD. There is no dispute that in all other respects, pay
protection, inclusion of past service for the purpose of pension
and other terminal benefits, the service rendered with the
previous employer is reckoned and taken into consideration. In
these circumstances, the GNCTD's position to deny the ACP
benefit - a benefit which is neither based upon seniority nor
based upon any selection criteria - is illogical and flies in the face
of the underlying purpose of the ACP, which is to relieve
stagnation in public employment.
8. For the foregoing reasons, we find no force in the
contentions of the GNCTD which are dismissed. At the same
time, except to clarify that the condition imposed by the CAT
upon the applicant that the release of ACPS and other connected
benefits would be subject to the final outcome of the SLP
W.P.(C) 1378/2014 Page 4
preferred against the ruling in Dinesh Kumar (supra) would not
apply. This is because the SLP, being SLP 29215/2011 was
rejected by the Supreme Court on 02.11.2012. The writ petition is
dismissed subject to the above directions.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
JAYANT NATH
(JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 05, 2014
W.P.(C) 1378/2014 Page 5
