Delhi High Court
Nirmal Kanta vs New Delhi Municipal Council ... on 2 September, 2014
Author: Vipin Sanghi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Date of Decision: 02.09.2014
% W.P.(C.) No. 6166/2013
NIRMAL KANTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Puneet Verma, Advocate
versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL (NDMC) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
VIPIN SANGHI, J. (OPEN COURT)
1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India to assail the order dated 12.03.2013 passed by
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, (for short,
'the Tribunal') in O.A. No. 1313/2011 whereby the petitioner's application
was dismissed by the Tribunal. The petitioner had raised her grievance
before the Tribunal that she has not been placed in the correct pay scale,
which had been granted to other similarly placed employees.
2. The case of the petitioner was that she was initially appointed as a
part time Craft Teacher on ad hoc basis on a consolidated salary vide order
dated 24.03.1987. Vide orders dated 09.03.1988, she was deemed to have
been appointed with effect from 13.10.1987 as a full time teacher at
W.P.(C.) No. 6166/2013 Page 1 of 6
Rs. 950/- in the pay scale of Rs.950-20-1150-EB-25-1500 plus usual
allowances including HRA, and was posted in the Social Education
Department against one of the five posts of Craft Teachers sanctioned for
absorption of part time Craft Teachers vide Resolution No. 6 dated
13.10.1987 of the respondent-New Delhi Municipal Committee. The
petitioner claimed that she possessed the requisite qualifications for such
appointment. The petitioner claimed that she was not aware that others had
been appointed to the post of Craft Teacher in the higher pay scale of
Rs. 1200-2040, instead of pay scale offered to her i.e. Rs. 950-1500.
3. The petitioner preferred the aforesaid original application with the
plea that she had recently learnt that others similarly situated were granted
the higher pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040. She raised a query under the Right to
Information Act (RTI Act) and the information furnished confirmed that
position. Under the RTI Act, she obtained the resolution passed by the
respondent sanctioning five posts of Craft Teachers and the recruitment
rules for Senior Social Education Teachers in Social Education Department,
as per which, the pay scale for such posts was determined at Rs. 1200-2040
under the Fourth Central Pay Commission (CPC) report. The petitioner
states that she was promoted to the post of Senior Social Education Teacher
in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 along with five other persons who were
already working as Senior Social Education Teachers on ad hoc basis in
pursuance to an order of April, 2008. As aforesaid, the petitioner claimed
that she became aware of her being granted a lower pay scale of Rs. 4000-
6000 instead of Rs. 4500-6500-granted to other employees, when the benefit
of the ACP scheme was granted by the respondent. The petitioner
W.P.(C.) No. 6166/2013 Page 2 of 6
represented against the same on 01.01.2010. Thereafter she obtained
information under the RTI Act and preferred the original application. The
petitioner sought the higher pay scale on the principle of equal pay for equal
work.
4. The petition was opposed by the respondent. In their counter reply,
the respondent raised the issue of the application being barred by limitation
since she had been placed in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500 on 09.03.1988,
whereas the original application was preferred only in the year 2011. On
merits, the respondent stated that there are two different posts of craft
teachers, namely, Junior Social Education Teachers in the pay scale of
Rs. 950-1500, and Senior Social Education Teachers in the pay scale of
Rs. 1200-2040. Since the petitioner was appointed and was working as a
Junior Craft Teacher, she was correctly placed in the pay scale of Rs. 950-
1500. The respondent also contended that apart from making general
averments, no specific details of other employees who were allegedly
drawing the pay in the higher pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 were pleaded. The
respondent categorically denied that any person in the employment of the
respondent, who had joined in the same post as the applicant, was ever
placed in the higher pay scale. The respondent also stated that prior to 1981
itself, there were two pay scales of craft teachers as per the recruitment rules
and that the junior scale was Rs. 950-1500. The respondent also stated that
when the new recruitment rules were framed, the nomenclature of the Craft
Teacher was changed to that of Social Education Teachers but the posts
remained the same, with the same nature of duties in two levels of posts with
different nomenclature i.e. the Junior Social Education Teacher and Senior
W.P.(C.) No. 6166/2013 Page 3 of 6
Social Education Teacher in the pay scales of Rs.950-1500 and Rs. 1200-
2040 respectively vide recruitment rules framed in 1991. The corresponding
pay scales for the pay scales of Rs. 950-1500 and Rs. 1200-2040 (under the
Fourth CPC) as fixed under the Fifth and Sixth CPCs were also disclosed by
the respondents.
5. The Tribunal considered the issues arising in the matter at length and
dismissed the same on the ground of limitation and latches by observing that
the petitioner never questioned the initial fixation of her salary in 1988 till
the year 2010. She had not questioned the seniority of the five people
shown above her as in April, 2008 who were promoted as Senior Social
Education Teachers on ad hoc basis prior to her. The Tribunal placed
reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal
Vs. Union of India JT 1994 (3) 126 wherein the Supreme Court had held
that delay defeats equity and courts should help those who are vigilant, and
not those who are indolent. Reliance was also placed on Ratan Chandra
Sammanta & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. JT 1993(3) SC 418 wherein
the Supreme Court had held that delay deprives the person of the remedy
available in law. A person who has lost his remedy by lapse of time, loses
his right as well. The Tribunal held that the petitioner had been sleeping
over her rights and did not agitate against the alleged discrimination at the
first available opportunity in the year 1988 or even in April, 2008 when five
other persons were granted promotion on ad hoc basic as Senior Social
Education Teachers and the petitioner was left out.
6. Even on merits, the Tribunal did not find any substance in the
petitioner's claim. The Tribunal held that the petitioner had not brought on
W.P.(C.) No. 6166/2013 Page 4 of 6
record the relevant facts to show as to how the exercise of option allowed to
her under Fundamental Rule 22 (I)(a)(1) in April, 2008, had impacted the
salary which was being paid to her. In this background, the Tribunal
dismissed the original application.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of delay
and latches, the petitioner may not be entitled to arrears of pay for a period
beyond three years, however, the petitioner is entitled to notional fixation of
pay from 1987 onwards in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040. Learned counsel
for the petitioner has also submitted that others similarly situated persons
who were appointed at the same time as the petitioner were granted the
higher pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 and the petitioner was discriminated.
8. On a query by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has not
been able to satisfy this Court that the petitioner had produced any cogent or
relevant material in support of her submissions. The petitioner was initially
appointed as a part time Craft Teacher. Subsequently, on 09.03.1988, she
was appointed as a Full Time Craft Teacher in the pay scale of Rs.950-20-
1150-EB-25-1500 against one of the five posts of Craft Teachers sanctioned
in the regular scale vide Resolution No. 6 dated 13.10.1987. There is
nothing to show that initially she was appointed as a Senior Craft Teacher.
The petitioner has herself produced the recruitment rules for the post of
Senior Social Education Teacher which show that the said post is a
promotional post from the post of Junior Social Education Teacher with 10
years experience in the grade of Rs. 950-1500. Delay and latches in a case
like the present would be fatal to the claim of the applicant. This is for the
reason that after such length of time, the respondent would be severally
W.P.(C.) No. 6166/2013 Page 5 of 6
handicapped in defending the claim of the applicant particularly when the
claim is founded upon the mere ipse dixit of the claimant and is not
supported by any documentary evidence. It is clear that the petitioner did
not raise any such grievance with regard to her alleged wrong fixation of pay
in 1987-88, and raised a grievance for the first time only in the year 2010.
We are of the view that the Tribunal was right in rejecting the petitioner's
original application both on limitation as well as on merits. Consequently,
we dismiss the present writ petition.
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
SEPTEMBER 02, 2014
sl
