Delhi High Court
Sanjay Kumar Singh vs Union Of India & Anr. on 2 September, 2014
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4771/2013
SANJAY KUMAR SINGH
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Saqib, Advocate for
respondent No. 1 and 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
ORDER
% 02.09.2014
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (ORAL)
1. Rule D.B.
2. With the consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up for
final disposal.
3. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner seeks directions to direct the respondents to decide inter se
seniority amongst the merged Grade of Overseer & BR-II in
implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission, after inviting
objections from the concerned employees and till finalisation of the
seniority list, no further promotion should be made from the merged
cadre.
4. We have heard the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
respondents.
5. The petitioner, who is a diploma holder in Civil Engineering, was
appointed as Overseer on 1st April 1986 with respondent No. 1. He was
promoted to the post of Superintendent BR Grade II w.e.f. 25.09.1991
and thereafter to the post of Superintendent BR Grade I w.e.f.
09.04.2008. The Sixth Central Pay Commission recommended the
upgradation of the post of Overseer and then merged it with other
promotional post of superintendant BR Grade II and then the post was
placed in the revised pay band, i.e., PB-II of Rs.9300-34800 alongwith
Grade Pay of Rs.4200. The relevant portion of the Sixth Central Pay
commission is reproduced as under:-
"Border Road Organisation
Overseer (Civil)
7.39.22 Higher pay scale has been demanded for the
post of Overseer (Civil in Border Roads organisation
on the ground that the minimum qualification for the
post is Diploma in Engineering. The post carries
minimum direct recruitment qualification of Diploma
in engineering. These minimum qualifications had
been prescribed in 1996. Fifth CPC, in their Report
submitted in 1997, had recommended the scale of
Rs.5000-150-8000 for all posts carrying minimum
direct recruitment qualification of Diploma in
Engineering. This recommendation was accepted. The
post should consequently have been extended the
scale of Rs.5000-150-8000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996. This was,
however, not done. The Commission, accordingly,
recommends that the post of Overseer may be
upgraded and merged with their promotional post of
Superintendent BR Grade II (Present scale Rs.4500-
8000. Since the Commission has recommended
merger of the scales of Rs.5000-150-8000, Rs.5500-
9000 and Rs.6500-10500, the post will be placed in
the revised Pay Band PB-2 of Rs.9300-34800
alongwith a grade pay of Rs.4200. Commission also
advises the Government to implement this
retrospectively from 1.1.1996, at least for the purpose
of fixation of pay.
6. The Central Government had implemented the recommendation of
the said Sixth Pay Commission and the respondents had prepared a
Master Seniority List consisting of the merged and re-designated post of
Junior Engineer (Civil) based on the orders issued by the Ministry of
Road Transport and Highways, BRDB note No.
F.No.BRDB/06/166/2010/GE-I dated 13.5.2010 and circulated it to all
concerned on 5th December 2012. The claim of the petitioner that his
seniority on the post of Junior Engineer (civil) should be counted from
the date of his appointment as an Overseer and not when he was
promoted to the rank of BR-II because of the merger of the said post, as a
result of the recommendations made by the Sixth Pay Commission is
totally misconceived and untenable.
7. There is a considerable merit in the submission of the counsel
appearing for the respondents that the post of JE (Civil) was not even in
existence on the date when the petitioner was appointed to the post of
Overseer and also the fact that three hierarchical grades were existing as
on 1.4.1986 i.e. Superintendent BR-I at the top; Superintendent BR-II in
the middle and Overseer as the bottom and if the prayer of the petitioner
is allowed then he would supersede all his seniors with retrospective
effect despite the fact that being an Overseer he was in the last tier of the
hierarchy. The said merger, which came into effect on the
recommendation made by the Sixth Pay Commission cannot be construed
in a manner to disturb the seniority of Overseers as it existed on the date
of their appointment. There is no merit in the present petition and the
same is hereby dismissed.
8. We also do not find any merit in the submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that a direction be given to the respondents to
invite objections after publishing a provisional seniority list so as to
finalise the Master Seniority List. This process is already over and the
petitioner has not cited any rule or office order or Government order
which mandates the following of such a procedure of inviting objections
for finalising the seniority list after the merger of the said grades of
Overseer and BR-II.
9. In view of the aforesaid observations, and finding no merit in the
petition filed by the petitioner the same is hereby dismissed.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
SEPTEMBER 02, 2014
pkb
