Delhi High Court
Nirmal Kashyap vs State Of M.P. & Ors. on 24 April, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.638/2014
% 24th April, 2015
NIRMAL KASHYAP ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Anilendra Pandey, Advocate.
versus
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sunny Choudhary with
Mr.Abhimany Singh, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
"(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to grant retirement benefits on promotional basis to the petitioner
as per Rules and directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.2095 of 2009 titled as Madan Mohan Saxena Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
and others;
(b) issue a writ order or direction as are deemed fit and proper directing the
respondent to grant the interest on arrears to the petitioner at 18% p.a.
(c) pass such further and other order as may be deemed fit and proper in the
interest of justice.
(d) award the cost of litigation in favour of the petitioner and against the
respondents."
W.P.(C) No.638/2014 Page 1 of 6
2. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition being W.P.(C)
No.7977/2013, and which was allowed to be withdrawn vide order dated
17.12.2013, giving liberty to file a fresh petition only if the necessary
ingredients of cause of action entitling the petitioner to the higher pay scale of
promotion is stated. The order dated 17.12.2013 reads as under:-
" Counsel for the petitioner, after arguments, seeks liberty to withdraw the
petition and to file the petition in which the necessary ingredients of cause of
action whereby a higher pay scale of promotion which is claimed are
averred.
Dismissed with the aforesaid liberty."
3. In this writ petition, petitioner has not pleaded any cause of action
based on a specific service rule or circular etc of the employer/respondent
no.1/State of M.P, as to how the petitioner is entitled to the higher scale of pay
of promotion, and such averments were necessary because only on the
petitioner satisfying the relevant ingredients with respect to the applicable rule
he can be granted the higher scale of pay of promotion. Obviously, petitioner
has not pleaded the requisite cause of action in his favour for grant of
promotion, much less in a writ petition which is filed in the year 2015
claiming the entitlement of higher pay scale of promotion since the year 2001,
because petitioner would not be satisfying the requirement of grant of
promotion or the higher pay scale of the promotion post. It is no cause of
action in the eyes of law to simply allege that since someone junior to the
W.P.(C) No.638/2014 Page 2 of 6
petitioner has been promoted, hence the petitioner is also automatically
entitled to promotion because of promotion of the junior. There is no such
rule pleaded or filed for the petitioner to get promotion only because his junior
is promoted.
4. The respondents have filed the counter-affidavit making averments as
to how the petitioner repeatedly has been granted in situ promotion or higher
time scale of pay as per the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme, and
which are stated in paras 2(ii)(b) to (g) of the counter-affidavit of the
respondents, and these paras read as under:
".........
(ii) That the relevant/material facts and documents hided from this
Hon'ble Court pertaining to the promotion and the grant of higher time
scale to the petitioner are enumerated as below:
xxxxx
(b) The State Government of Madhya Pradesh implemented the "kramonati
yojna" for the fact that the regular employees who were working
continuously for 12 years or more and could not be promoted to higher post
because of some reasons, vide order dated 17.04.1999. Under this scheme
the employees who have continuously worked for 12 yrs or more on the
same pay scale were granted First Higher pay scale. A true translated copy
of the order/policy dated 17.04.1999 is annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE R-1.
(c) The Petitioner vide order dated 26.02.2000 was granted higher pay
scale in pursuance of the order/policy dated 17.04.1999 w.e.f. 17.05.1999
in the pay scale of 4000-100-6000. The Petitioner herein has hided this
grant of higher pay scale from this Hon'ble Court. A true translated copy
of the order dated 26.02.2000 is annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE-2.
W.P.(C) No.638/2014 Page 3 of 6
(d) The Petitioner herein vide government order dated 01.08.2007 was
promoted on the post of Assistant House Keeper in the pay scale of
Rs.4000-100-6000 on certain terms and conditions under Rule 15, Schedule
IV of Office of the Commissioner, Government of Madhya Pradesh, at
New Delhi Class III (Non-gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2003 when
the vacancy fell vacant. The Petitioner herein had hided her promotion
from this Hon'ble Court and tried to create an impression that in her entire
career, she was never granted any promotion or higher pay scale in lieu of
promotion. A copy of the Office of the Commissioner, Government of
Madhya Pradesh, at New Delhi Class III (Non-gazetted) Service
Recruitment Rules, 2003 and true translated copy of the promotion order
dated 01.08.2007 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE R-3
(COLLY).
(e) That the State Government of M.P vide order dated 24.01.2008
amended above referred "kramonati Yojna" to further facilitate employees
with "Time scale pay". A true and translated copy of the amended
'Kramonati Yojan'/Time Scale Pay dated 24.01.2008 is annexed herewith
and marked as ANNEXURE R-4.
(f) The Petitioner vide order dated 05.08.2011 was granted time pay scale
in pursuance of the order/policy dated 24.01.2008 w.e.f. 01.04.2006 in the
pay scale of 5200-20200+2800. The Petitioner herein has hided this grant
of time pay scale from this Hon'ble Court. A true translated copy of the
order dated 05.08.2011 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE
R-5.
(g) That the answering Respondents herein most respectfully submits that
the Petitioner has hided the abovementioned facts pertaining to promotion
and the grant of higher pay scale from time to time and tried to mislead this
Hon'ble Court by creating the impression that in her entire service she was
never promoted or granted any higher pay scale in lieu of promotion."
(underlining added)
5. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner does not seem to understand the
basic aspect that courts of law are meant to be approached where there is at
least a reasonable case, and it is not that courts of law have to be repeatedly
approached with totally frivolous matters and even without pleading the
W.P.(C) No.638/2014 Page 4 of 6
necessary cause of action. As already stated above, the requisite facts have not
been pleaded in the writ petition, because, the petitioner in fact has no legal
cause of action to claim the reliefs which are sought in the writ petition.
6. In terms of the counter affidavit of respondents it is noted that the
petitioner did receive one promotion on 01.8.2007, and a copy of which
promotion order has been annexed with the counter-affidavit of the
respondents as Annexure R-3 (colly).
7. I may note that in view of the frivolous nature of the case, even after
arguments, I put it to the counsel for the petitioner whether the petitioner still
seeks to press this petition and invite a judgment, in reply to which counsel for
the petitioner seeks a judgment.
8. In view of the above, the writ petition is a total abuse of the process of
the law, and the same is therefore dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/-.
At this stage, on the submission of counsel for the respondents, costs
instead of being paid to the respondents be deposited with the Delhi High
Court Legal Aid Services Committee within a period of six weeks from today.
9. List before the Registrar on 1st July, 2015. In case, costs imposed are
not deposited by the petitioner, Registrar can recover the same as arrears of
W.P.(C) No.638/2014 Page 5 of 6
land revenue from the petitioner and deposit the same with the Delhi High
Court Legal Aid Services Committee.
APRIL 24, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
KA
