Delhi High Court
Employees State Insurance ... vs Sumer Singh & Anr. on 18 February, 2015
Author: Kailash Gambhir
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of hearing and order: 18th February 2015
+ W.P.(C) 3100/2014
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION (ESIC)
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manish Kumar Saran, Advocate
versus
SUMER SINGH & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA
ORDER
%
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (ORAL)
By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 03.12.2013 passed by
learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in
O.A. No. 1778/2012.
The main grievance raised by the petitioner is that the respondents
were not entitled to the benefit of their previous service on the post of LDC
for increments as the respondents themselves had accepted the offer for
appointment to the post of LDC without reserving any right to claim the
benefit of their past services for the purposes of grant of increments.
Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, the learned counsel for the respondents on the
other hand placed reliance on Rule 22-C of Fundamental Rules, Vol. I,
which entitles these respondents to the benefit of counting their previous
service for the purpose of grant of increments. Counsel thus submits that
proviso to the said Rule clearly envisage that if a government servant who
has previously held a post whether substantively or officiating and later
appointed on regular basis or substantively, then this proviso shall apply in
the matter of initial fixation of pay and counting of previous service for
increments. The learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the said
rule was the subject matter of consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of D.G., Employees' State Insurance Corporation vs. B.
Raghava Shetty and others, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 681.
We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties as well as gone through the contents of the petition and the judgment
relied upon by the parties.
For better appreciation, Rule 22-C of Fundamental Rules, Vol.I is
reproduced as under:-
"Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules,
where a Government servant holding a post in a
substantive, temporary of officiating capacity is
promoted or appointed in a substantive temporary or
officiating capacity to another post carrying duties and
responsibilities of greater importance than those
attached to the post held by him, his initial pay in the
time scale of the higher post shall be fixed at the stage
next above the pay notionally arrived at by increasing his
pay in respect of the lower post by one increment at the
stage at which such pay has accrued. Provided that the
provisions of this Rule shall not apply where Government
servant holding a Class-I (Group-A) post in a
substantive, temporary or officiating capacity is
promoted or appointed in a substantive, temporary or
officiating capacity to higher post which is also a Class-I
(Group-A) post and carries a time-scale of pay with the
minimum of more than Rs. 1500/-.
Provided further that the provisions of Sub-rule (3) of
Rule 31 shall not be applicable in any case where the
initial pay fixed under this Rule; Provided also that
where a Government servant is, immediately before his
promotion or appointment to a higher post, drawing pay
at the maximum of the time scale of the lower post, his
initial pay in the time-scale of the higher post shall be
fixed at the stage next above the pay notionally arrived at
by increasing his pay in respect of the lower post by an
amount equal to the last increment in the time-scale of
the lower post.
Provided that if Government servant either -
i) has previously held substantively or officiated in :-
i) the same post, or
ii) a permanent or temporary post on the same time-
scale, or
ii) a permanent post other than a tenure post or
temporary post (including a post in a body incorporated
or not, which is wholly or substantially owned or
controlled by the Government on an identical time-scale;
or
iii) if appointed substantively to a tenure post on a time-
scale identical with that of another tenure post which he
has previously held substantively or in which he has
previously officiated then proviso to FR 22 shall apply in
the matter of initial fixation of pay and counting of
previous service for increment."
On a cursory glance, the aforesaid Rule would reveal that the benefit
of counting of previous service for the purposes of increments would be
available to a person appointed substantively, temporarily or in officiating
capacity in the matter of initial fixation of pay.
In the facts of the present case also, the claim of these respondents
before the learned Tribunal was for counting their ad-hoc service for
granting increments, which were granted to them while working as LDC on
ad-hoc basis. The O.A. filed by these respondents were allowed by the
Tribunal and the Tribunal placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in
W.P. (C) No. 1184/2005 titled as Union of India and others v. Shri Kailash
Chand and Anr., decided on 17.4.2006 and also on their decision in
O.A.No.1914/2006 decided on 1.6.2007. The Tribunal has interpreted the
said Rule 22-C of Fundamental Rule correctly and therefore, we find no
infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal.
Finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed
but without any costs.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
I.S. MEHTA, J
FEBRUARY 18, 2015
pkb
