Delhi High Court
Raj Kumari Verma vs The Commissioner Mcd (North) & ... on 14 May, 2015
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4584/2014
RAJ KUMARI VERMA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Inderjeet Singh, Advocate
versus
THE COMMISSIONER MCD (NORTH) & ANR. ... Respondents
Through Ms. Mansi Gupta, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
ORDER
% 14.05.2015
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (ORAL)
By this Writ Petition preferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated
25.03.2014 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned
Tribunal') in Original Application (in short 'OA') No.744/2013.
The grievance raised by the petitioner is that for granting the
Assured Career Progression (in short 'ACP') benefits, the period of
service of the petitioner to the post of Public Health Nurse (in short
'PHN') should be reckoned from 1989 when she was given Current Duty
Charge (in short 'CDC') on the said post and not from 18.06.1992 when
she was given appointment on regular basis on the said post.
Ms. Mansi Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondents has
drawn the attention of this Court to the Office Memorandum dated 9th
August, 1999 dealing with the said ACP scheme for the Central
Government employees with emphasis on para 5.2 of the same which
states that residency periods (regular service) for grant of benefits under
the ACP scheme shall be counted from the grade in which an employee
was appointed as a direct recruit.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner had initially joined service in MCD as 'A' Grade
Staff Nurse on 26.10.1982 and vide order dated 20.02.1989 she was
appointed as PHN on CDC. The pay of the petitioner was fixed in the
same pay scale of Staff Nurse, i.e. Rs.1400-2600/- and not in the pay
scale of PHN, i.e. 1640-2900/- . The petitioner was granted the benefit of
1st financial upgradation under the ACP scheme on the completion of 12
years of service on the post of PHN and for that period which was
reckoned from the date when she was given regular appointment on the
said post. Thus the grievance raised by the petitioner is that this period of
12 years should be reckoned from when she was appointed on the said
post on CDC.
The learned Tribunal has reproduced the order dated 18.06.1992 by
which the petitioner was given regular appointment as PHN in the pay
scale of Rs.1400-2600/-. The perusal of the office order clearly shows
that the departmental candidates who were working on the approved
panel of PHN and are working as PHN in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600/-
were appointed to the post of PHN in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/-
plus usual allowance etc. This office order also clearly shows that there
was no revision in the Grade Pay of the petitioner and she was drawing
the same pay scale of Staff Nurse, i.e. pay scale of Rs.1400-2600/-.
The office order dated 23.01.2013 issued by the respondent also
refers to the office order dated 20.02.1989 by which the petitioner was
given the CDC on the post of PHN and the conditions contained there
envisaged that i) It will not confer any right on the official for claiming
ad hoc or regular appointment to this post or any other service benefits;
ii) The interim arrangement can be terminated at any time by the
competent authority without assigning any reason and giving any prior
notice; iii) The period of service rendered on current charge basis will not
count as officiation in the higher post for any purpose; and iv) Other
conditions of service will be governed by the relevant rules and orders
that may be in force from time to time.
Taking into consideration the said para 5.2 of the ACP scheme and
also the fact that the petitioner was merely given the CDC on the post of
PHN in the same pay scale which she was drawing on the said post for
Staff Nurse and the order making it clear that the period of service
rendered by the petitioner on CDC will not be counted as officiation in
the higher post for any purpose and also the fact that at the time of giving
direct recruitment to the petitioner to the post, there was a clear condition
that the departmental candidates who were working on the approved
panel of PHN in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600/- to be appointed to the
post of PHN in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/- plus usual allowance etc.
and also another fact that the petitioner never lay any challenge to the
said condition therefore, we find no infirmity and perversity in the order
passed by the learned Tribunal and office order 23.01.2013 passed by the
respondents whereby for considering the case of the petitioner under the
ACP scheme, the period of 12 years has been reckoned from the date
when she was given appointment to the said post on regular basis.
There is no merit in the present Writ Petition and the same is
hereby dismissed.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
I.S.MEHTA, J.
MAY 14, 2015
v
