Delhi High Court
Arvind Dhanvick And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors on 8 March, 2016
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7503/2015
Date of decision: 8th March, 2016
ARVIND DHANVICK AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. H.P.Chakravorty, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jasmeet Singh, CGSC with
Ms. Astha Sharma, Adv. or R-1/UOI.
Mr. Rajeev Sharma with
Mr. Sahil Bhalaik, Advs. for R-2 &3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, we are not
inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 7.2.2014 and
review order dated 15.7.2014 whereby Original Application
No.3271/2011 and connected applications, and RA No.118/2014 and
connected applications have been dismissed.
2. The petitioners, four in number, were working as Statistical
Computer in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040/- in the All India Radio.
The next promotional post was Investigator/Statistical Assistant in the
pay scale of Rs.1400-2300. The total number of posts of
Investigator/Statistical Assistants was 107 and that of Statistical
Computer, 31.
3. As per the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission
which were accepted on 30th September, 1997 and implemented in the
All India Radio with effect from 1st February, 2000, it was decided
that the post of Statistical Computer would be a „dying‟ cadre for
which there would not be any further recruitment.
4. The Audience Research Cadre was re-structured with effect
from 8th August, 2000 vide order dated 20th September, 2000. As a
result of the re-structuring existing posts of Investigator/Statistical
Assistant were abolished, and 50 posts of Investigator Grade I and 57
posts of Investigator Grade II in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.1640-
2900 and 1600-2660/- respectively, were created.
5. Promotions from the post of Statistical Computers to the post of
Investigator Grade II could not be made from 2000 to 2003 as the
Recruitment Rules of Audience Research Cadre were being finalized
and under preparation.
6. As the post of Statistical Computer was declared a „dying‟
cadre, it was decided with approval of authorities, that 25% of the
vacancies in the Investigator Grade II would be filled up by way of
promotion from the post of Statistical Computer. Arvind Dhanvick,
one of the petitioners, was thereafter promoted as Investigator Grade
II in 2006 and the other petitioners in 2008.
7. In the meanwhile, six persons were appointed as
Investigator/Statistical Assistant as „direct recruits‟, with effect from
the following dates:-
37. Sh. Nirodh Kumar Patra 01.06.1999
38. Sh.Praveen Nagdive 18.08.1999
39. Sh.Ajit Mahto 23.08.1999
40. Sh.Elango 13.10.1999
41. Sh.Shafat Hussain 25.01.2000
42. Sh.Anil Kumar Mandi 28.02.2000
8. The Tribunal in the impugned order has noted that this
recruitment was before 27.1.2000, i.e., the date on which the Fifth
Pay Commission recommendations were accepted and the circular
dated 1.2.2000 was published. The said six had actually joined service
on or before 27.1.2000, except Anil Kumar Mandi who joined on
28.02.2000. These appointments were before the cadre restructuring
exercise effected from 8th August, 2000 vide order dated 20th
September, 2000.
9. The petitioners claim that the six appointments should not have
been made, and instead, they should have been promoted to the post
of Investigator Grade II. It has been further submitted that the Fifth
Pay Commission recommendations were accepted on 30th September,
1997 and were effected from 1.1.1996.
10. We have already noted that the recommendations of the Fifth
Pay Commission regarding posts of Statistical Computers were
implemented with effect from 27.1.2000. Thereupon, in terms of the
circular dated 1.2.2000, the post of Statistical Computer was declared
a „dying‟ cadre. We have noticed that there was a re-structuring of
Audience Research Cadre with effect from 8th August, 2000 as
stipulated in the order dated 20th September, 2000.
11. In the original application filed in the year 2011, order dated
27.1.2000 by which the Fifth Pay Commission‟s recommendations
were implemented, the circular/order dated 20.9.2000 by which cadre
re-structuring was directed, were challenged. It is difficult to believe
that the petitioners working in the same organization were not aware
of the appointments of the aforesaid six direct recruits in the year
1999-2000. Further, these appointments were made in 1999-2000, by
way of direct recruitment, in accordance with the extant Recruitment
Rules.
12. The petitioners, if they had any grievance with the orders dated
1.2.2000 or 20.9.2000 and were seeking promotion in the year 2000
or earlier, should have raised their objection and claim in 2000 soon
thereafter. The cause of action had arisen once the circular dated
1.2.2000 and order dated 20.9.2000 were circulated.
13. Furthermore, the contentions of the Petitioners, as are apparent
from the Tribunal‟s order, are ambiguous and confusing. Their precise
grievance it appears is stagnation, because in the 2009 Seniority List,
they have been placed below the six direct recruits mentioned above.
It is obvious that these direct recruits were appointed and had taken
over as Investigator Grade II in the year 1999-2000, before Petitioners
were promoted to the said posts. This is the reason, it appears, as to
why the Petitioners have not referred to any rule governing seniority
or violation thereof. The six direct recruits were also not made a party
to the OA, and are not a party to the present writ petition.
14. In case petitioners had sought antedating of promotion or
notional promotion to the post of Investigator Grade II, they were
required to make out a clear case of violation of rules, or that the
appointments were deliberately delayed though there were existing
vacancies in the 25% quota. In case they were challenging the
recruitment rules/ criteria followed for promotion to Investigator
Grade II, once Statistical Computer was declared a "dying" cadre,
then again a clear cut case should have been made out. Question of
limitation and other aspects would have arisen and examined in light
of the said contention. The petitioners have not made any such
foundation and accordingly the Tribunal has dismissed the OA.
15. We do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order
on mere general assertions, without a factual foundation and legal
basis. Looked from all angles, we find that there is no merit in the
present writ petition and the same is dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
MARCH 08, 2016/ak
