Ram Kishore Vashisht And Anr. vs Food Corporation Of India & Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 387 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          W.P.(C) No. 4564/1997

%                                                     15th January , 2015

RAM KISHORE VASHISHT AND ANR.              ......Petitioners
                 Through: Mr. H.K.Chaturvedi, Advocate for
                          petitioner no.2.

                           VERSUS

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS.              ...... Respondents

Through: Mr. Ajit Pudussery and Ms. Shruti Sharma Hazarika, Advocates for respondent/ FCI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India petitioner no.2 had claimed originally a total of five effective reliefs

and two other consequential reliefs. Essentially, the petitioner no.2 was

seeking lateral movement from the ministerial cadre of the

employer/respondent no.1/Food Corporation of India to the movement

cadre. Transfer is sought to the movement cadre w.e.f. 1993.

2. This writ petition was dismissed by a judgment of this Court on

21.5.2013 inasmuch as, other persons who would have been adversely

affected by the petitioner seeking the reliefs were not made parties. Reliance

was placed for dismissing the petition on the judgment of the Supreme Court

in the case of Girjesh Shrivastava and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

and Ors. (2010) 10 SCC 707.

3. A review petition was subsequently filed by the petitioner no.2

stating that in the writ petition challenge was laid to the vires of the FCI

(Staff) Regulations, 1971 and therefore the matter should have been heard

by the Division Bench of this Court and not by this Court as a Single Bench.

Review petition was therefore allowed by an order of this Court dated

11.7.2013 and the matter was thereafter placed before the Division Bench of

this Court.

4. When the matter came up before the Division Bench of this

Court on 1.10.2013, petitioner no.2 gave up his challenge to the vires of the

FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971 and therefore the matter was remitted by the

Division Bench of this Court to be decided by the learned Single Judge of

this Court on merits.

5. A learned Single Judge of this Court thereafter on 11.2.2014

passed the order which records that the petitioner no.2 had given up all the

reliefs except relief no.(iii) and the consequential reliefs no.(vi) and (vii).

6. The issue therefore which now remains is whether the petitioner

no.2 is entitled to the reliefs claimed of lateral movement from the

ministerial cadre to the movement cadre w.e.f 1993.

7. I put a query to the counsel for the petitioner no.2 that if

monetary emoluments in the movement cadre are more than the ministerial

cadre in which the petitioner no.2 was working as of 1993, and to which it is

conceded that the emoluments for the same post in which the petitioner no.2

was working in the ministerial cadre are the same to the same post in the

movement cadre with the only difference that in the movement cadre, there

are greater chances of promotions for the petitioner no.2.

8. Counsel for the petitioner no.2 also concedes that on account of

the petitioner no.2 remaining in the ministerial cadre from 1993 till this

petition is coming up for hearing in 2015, petitioner no.2 in his ministerial

cadre has in fact received certain promotions ie petitioner no.2 is working at

a post which is higher than the post as he was working in the year 1993 and

consequentially receiving higher emoluments.

9. The sequitur of the response of the counsel for the petitioner

no.2 to the aforesaid two queries is that if the petitioner no.2 succeeds in this

writ petition, petitioner no.2 will have to be placed in the movement cadre of

his employer/respondent no.1 in the same position he was in 1993, because

petitioner no.2 in this writ petition has not pleaded any rules entitling the

petitioner no.2 to automatic promotion in the respondent no.1/employer in

the movement cadre and which will give the petitioner no.2 a higher post in

the movement cadre today as compared to when the petitioner no.2 was

working in 1993. In fact, petitioner no.2 would loose out with respect to

promotions he has been granted in the ministerial cadre since 1993 if he is

today placed in the movement cadre at the post he was working in the

ministerial cadre in the year 1993. This is because it is conceded that in the

promotion rules in the movement cadre, there is no automatic promotion,

and since there is no automatic promotion unless petitioner no.2 satisfies an

eligibility criteria, petitioner no.2 will required to be selected by a

Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for promotions in movement

cadre and that too assumingly there arose vacancies in the posts in the

movement cadre, and all of which undecided and uncertain aspects show

that petitioner no.2 cannot be today placed at a post in the movement cadre

which is higher than the post at which the petitioner no.2 was working in

1993 and therefore effectively by granting of the reliefs in the writ petition,

petitioner no.2 would be severely prejudiced because petitioner no.2 will be

demoted to a post which he was working in 1993 if the relief claimed in this

petition is allowed.

10. As stated above a reading of the writ petition shows that no

cause of action is averred as to automatic entitlement of the petitioner no.2

to promotions if the petitioner no.2 is granted appointment to the movement

cadre since the year 1993, and once that is so, if petitioner no.2 is granted

the relief of being appointed to the movement cadre since 1993, petitioner

no.2 will have to refund all monetary benefits which he has received in the

promotion posts which he has got in the ministerial cadre since 1993.

11. Counsel for the petitioner no.2 is arguing this case on behalf of

the Legal Aid Committee, and this case is only argued on behalf of the

petitioner no.2 because petitioner no.1 is no longer pursuing this writ

petition. Even so far as petitioner no.2 is concerned, counsel for the

petitioner no.2 has received no instructions, and in my opinion instructions

were necessary because if I allow the reliefs claimed in this writ petition

actually I will be grossly prejudicing the petitioner no.2 by putting the

petitioner no.2 at a post much lower to the post in which he would be

presently working or would have worked after 1993, with the consequential

effect of the petitioner no.2 having to refund the monetary benefits of the

higher posts in the ministerial cadre inasmuch as, the petitioner no.2 cannot

be granted automatic promotions in the movement cadre posts till the

petitioner no.2 had pleaded and shown satisfaction of eligibility criteria for

the promotions in the movement cadre of the employer, and which as stated

above has not been done.

12. Dismissed.

JANUARY 15, 2015/ib                          VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J