Delhi High Court
Telecom Regulatory Authority Of ... vs Dinesh Singh Dhanik & Others on 19 May, 2016
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 7601/2015
Reserved on: 10th May, 2016
% Date of Decision: 19th May, 2016
TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA....Petitioner
Through Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG with Mr. Saket
Singh, Advocate.
Versus
DINESH SINGH DHANIK & OTHERS .....Respondents
Through Mr. R.N. Singh & Mr. Amit Singh, Advocates
for respondent No. 1.
Mr. J.S.Bhasin & Ms. Rashmi Priya, Advocates for
respondent No. 2-UOI.
Mr. Anuj Aggarwal & Mr. Shubhanshu Gupta,
Advocates for respondent No. 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI, for short) by this writ
petition impugns order dated 25th May, 2015 passed by the Principal Bench
of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi (Tribunal, for short) in
OA No. 1030/2014.
2. The aforesaid OA was filed by Mr. Dinesh Singh Dhanik,
respondent No. 1 before us, who claims that he is senior to Ms. P. Janki,
respondent No. 4 in the post of Section Officer (Hindi). Ms. P. Janki, the
W.P. (C) No. 7601/2015 Pag e 1 of 21
fourth respondent before us has not challenged the impugned order dated
25th May, 2015 passed by the Tribunal holding that the first respondent is
senior to her.
3. The relevant facts are rather circumscribed, but do require
elucidation. They are:-
(a) The fourth respondent Ms. P. Janki was appointed as an Assistant in the
TRAI in the year 2001.
(b) On 1st January, 2009, she was promoted as Section Officer (Hindi) in
Pay Band-2 (Rs.9300-34800), with Grade Pay of Rs.4600.
(c) The first respondent-Dinesh Singh Dhanik had joined Central Reserve
Police Force (CRPF) at the post of Inspector/Hindi Translator on 25th
April, 2005 in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 revised to Rs.9300-34800 in
Pay Band-2 with Grade Pay of Rs.4600 with effect from 1st January, 2006
on implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission.
(d) TRAI by advertisement/notification dated 1st March, 2011 had invited
applications for filling up posts of Section Officer (Hindi) on deputation/
foreign service terms in PB-2 (Rs.9300-34800) with Grade Pay of Rs.4600
from officers of Central Government, Public Sector Undertakings and
statutory and autonomous bodies; (i) holding equivalent post on regular
basis or (ii) having six years of regular service in the grade of Assistant in
W.P. (C) No. 7601/2015 Pag e 2 of 21
PB-2 (Rs.9300-34800) plus Grade Pay of Rs.4200 or equivalent; and (iii)
those having knowledge of computer and possessing adequate experience
of translation from English to Hindi and vice-versa. Preference was to be
given to officers having experience of translation in scientific and technical
departments. The period of deputation was two years.
(e) The first respondent applied and was appointed as Section Officer
(Hindi) on deputation for two years. The application specifically stated
that the said respondent was working at the post of Inspector/Hindi
Translator on regular basis in the Pay Band of Rs.9300-34800 and Grade
Pay of Rs.4600 with effect from 25th April, 2005. The first respondent was
interviewed and thereafter selected for the post of Section Officer (Hindi)
on deputation basis in PB-2 (Rs.9300-34800) plus Grade Pay of Rs.4600.
The first respondent joined and was to remain on deputation for a period of
two years.
(f) By office order dated 30th August, 2011, the first respondent was
granted deputation (duty) allowance @ 5 % of the basic pay, subject to a
maximum of Rs.2000/- per month. This was on account of the fact that the
first respondent was drawing the same pay in his parent department, i.e.,
Grade Pay of Rs.4600 in PB-2.
W.P. (C) No. 7601/2015 Pag e 3 of 21
(g) The first respondent subsequently expressed his willingness for
permanent absorption in TRAI. By letter dated 21st May, 2013, TRAI
advised the first respondent to tender his resignation in CRPF and that he
would be absorbed in TRAI immediately after acceptance of his
resignation and release by the parent office. Paragraph 4 of the said letter
is relevant and reads as under:-
"4. Shri Dinesh Singh Dhanik may please take
note that on absorption his service in TRAI will be
governed by TRAI (Officers & Staff Appointment)
Regulation 2001 and TRAI (Salary, Allowances and
other conditions of services of officers and employees)
Rules, 2002, as amended from time to time."
(h) The first respondent tendered his technical resignation effective from
2nd July, 2013 as per office order issued by CRPF on 19 th July, 2013. This
order notes that the first respondent had tendered the said technical
resignation on permanent absorption as Section Officer (Hindi) in TRAI
also with effect from 2nd July, 2013.
4. Consequent thereto, TRAI issued office order No. 3/2013-14 No. 21
dated 23rd July, 2013 affirming that the first respondent has been appointed
in the grade of Section Officer in PB-2 (Rs.9300-34800) plus Grade Pay of
Rs.4600 in TRAI on permanent absorption basis with effect from the
forenoon of 2nd July, 2013.
W.P. (C) No. 7601/2015 Pag e 4 of 21
5. Immense reliance has been placed by the petitioner on the office
order dated 23rd July, 2013 written by TRAI. The said document reads as
under:-
"Consequent upon grant of No Objection Certificate
for permanent absorption of Shri Dinesh Singh Dhanik
[No.921860105] Inspector/Hindi Translator of Central
Reserve Police Force (MHA) in TRAI by DIG, CRPF,
New Delhi letter No. D.I.1/2011-Min. (D.S.) dated 26th
June, 2013, approval of the competent authority in
TRAI is conveyed for appointment of Shri Dinesh
Singh Dhanik in the grade of Section Officer in PB-2
Rs.9300-34800 + Grade Pay Rs.4600 in TRAI on
permanent absorption basis with effect from the
forenoon of 2nd July, 2013."
Relying upon the said document, the wording of the said document
and specially the words "on permanent absorption basis with effect from
forenoon of 2nd July, 2013", it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner
that the first respondent‟s seniority is to be counted from the date of regular
absorption on 2nd July, 2013 and, therefore, the said respondent would be
junior to the fourth respondent, who was promoted as Section Officer
(Hindi) on regular basis on 1st January, 2009. In other words, the
contention is that in terms of the office order dated 23 rd July, 2013, the first
respondent was pertinently denied seniority on the basis of service
rendered by him as Inspector/Translator in his parent department, i.e.,
CRPF. Our attention was also drawn to office notings in the files of the
petitioner, which are to the following effect:-
W.P. (C) No. 7601/2015 Pag e 5 of 21
"2. Shri Dinesh Singh Dhanik was holding the
post of Inspector/Hindi Translator in Central Reserve
Police Force (MHA) from which post he came on
deputation to TRAI as Section Officer (Hindi), which
is a higher post as compared to that of Inspector/Hindi
Translator. Therefore, in terms of TRAI (Officers and
Staff Appointment) Regulation 2001, his seniority in
the post of Section Officer would be fixed from the
date of his permanent absorption in TRAI i.e. below all
Section Officers already borne on the TRAI cadre."
3. In view of the foregoing, kind approval of
Chairperson, TRAI may be solicited for appointment
of Shri Dinesh Singh Dhanik in the grade of Section
Officer [PB-2 Rs.9300-34800 + GP Rs.4600] in TRAI
cadre on permanent absorption basis wef the forenoon
of 2nd July, 2013."
6. It was submitted that the first respondent had clearly understood that
his seniority would be counted from the date of permanent absorption as is
also apparent from his letter dated 17th April, 2013 by which he had made a
request for permanent absorption in TRAI. The relevant portion of the said
letter reads as under:-
"4. Sir, it is pertinent to mention here that I have
been working in the same pay scale of CRPF
(Inspector) (i.e., Rs.9300-32500 Group B „GP 4600/-)
since April, 2005 (i.e. from last 8 years) in TRAI and
possess a Masters‟ Degree (MA HINDI) with about 21
years of experience of relevant field i.e. translation in
English to Hindi & vice-versa and implementation of
OL Policy as well as in Administration/Personnel.
TRAI had appointed me as Section Officer (Hindi)
w.e.f. 07/07/2011, keeping in view my aforesaid
qualifications. Hence, I can be considered eligible for
the post of Section Officer (Hindi) on the same criteria
i.e. having completed more than 08 years service in the
W.P. (C) No. 7601/2015 Pag e 6 of 21
same pay scale of Section Officer (i.e. Rs.9300-32500
Group B „GP 4600/-)."
7. Lastly, our attention was drawn to Regulation 11(iia) of the Telecom
Regulatory Authority of India (Officers and Staff Appointment) Regulation
2001 (2001 Regulation, for short) which stipulates that appointing
authority may from time to time by an appropriate order make
appointments on permanent absorption basis of any person already
appointed on deputation, subject to certain conditions. Regarding inter se
seniority of those taken on deputation and then absorbed, viz., others in the
same grade, Regulation 11 (iia) of the 2001 Regulation postulates:-
"In the case of a person who is initially taken on
deputation and absorbed later, his seniority in the grade
in which he is absorbed will normally be counted from
the date of absorption. If he has, however, been
holding already (on the date of absorption) the same or
equivalent grade on regular basis in his parent
department such regular service in the grade shall also
be taken into account in fixation of his seniority,
subject to the condition that he will be given seniority
from:-
(a) the date he has been holding the post on Deputation, or
(b) the date from which he has been appointed on a regular
basis to the same or equivalent grade in parent
department, whichever is earlier.
Provided that the fixation of seniority of a transferee in
accordance with the above principles will not, however
affect any regular promotions to the next higher grade
made prior to the date of such absorption."
W.P. (C) No. 7601/2015 Pag e 7 of 21
8. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that as per the
first sentence of Regulation 11(iia) the appointing authority can impose a
condition that the seniority of a person taken on deputation and
subsequently absorbed will be counted from the date of absorption and the
earlier period would not be counted. This is the normal rule and the said
rule was adopted and applied at the time of absorption of the first
respondent. The second sentence in Regulation 11(iia) would not be
applicable, for at the time of permanent absorption of the first respondent,
he was specifically told that the absorption would be with effect from 2 nd
July, 2013.
9. We have no hesitation in rejecting the said contentions as being far-
fetched and untenable. We have quoted above paragraph 4 of the letter
dated 21st May, 2013 by which the petitioners had informed the first
respondent that the first respondent‟s request for permanent absorption in
TRAI had been considered favourably and that he would be absorbed
immediately after his resignation and release from CRPF. Paragraph 4 of
the said letter specifically states that on absorption, the fourth respondent
would be governed by the 2001 Regulations and TRAI (Salary and
Allowances and Other Conditions of Service of Officers and Employees)
Rules 2002 as amended from time to time. This letter did not stipulate and
specify that the first respondent‟s seniority would be counted from the date
W.P. (C) No. 7601/2015 Pag e 8 of 21
he is permanently absorbed as Section Officer (Hindi) and that his past
service as Inspector/Hindi Translator in CRPF would not be counted.
Neither do we find any such wording or statement in the office order No.
3/2013-14 No.21 dated 23rd July, 2013. Use of the expression "permanent
absorption basis with effect from the forenoon of 2nd July, 2013" is a mere
narration of the facts, which is true and correct. It is difficult to accept the
contention of the petitioners that the said factual narration also means that
the first respondent would be entitled to seniority with effect from 2nd July,
2013. This has not been so stated in the letter and cannot be inferred as
suggested. The contention of the petitioners adds several words and
attributes meaning to the said communication, which is impermissible and
wrong.
10. We have quoted above the office noting relied upon by counsel for
the petitioner. This, we observe, cannot bind the first respondent and at
best it can be treated as an opinion of someone in the office. The said
opinion records that the post of Inspector/Hindi Translator in CRPF was a
lower post and the post of Section Officer (Hindi) in TRAI was a higher
post. This reasoning or ratio forms the basis of the conclusion that in terms
of the 2001 Regulations seniority of the first respondent at the post of
Section Officer (Hindi) would be fixed from the date of his absorption in
TRAI, below all Section Officers already borne in the cadre of Section
W.P. (C) No. 7601/2015 Pag e 9 of 21
Officers (Hindi). Nowhere does the said note indicate or reflect, as
suggested by the petitioner, that TRAI had at the time of absorption
decided to invoke the general rule of seniority mentioned in the first
sentence of Regulation 11(iia) to the exclusion of the principle that prior
service rendered in the equivalent post would be counted. The submission
made can therefore be read as contrary to the file noting. We cannot read
the said fiction and words into the said office noting. The aforesaid notings
form a part of Annexure-9 filed in this Court on 27th July, 2015. Earlier
notings indicate that a committee of three persons was set up to consider
the case of the first respondent for absorption to the post of Section Officer
(Hindi). The first respondent had conveyed his acceptance to the
Chairman, TRAI, the appointing authority, on 15th May, 2013. The
Selection Committee subsequent to approval by the authority, had asked
the first respondent to submit his technical resignation clearly indicating
the date on which he wished to be released from his parent department.
The file was accordingly processed and the technical resignation of the first
respondent was forwarded to CRPF. Letter dated 26th June, 2013 from the
CRPF conveys their „no objection‟ for permanent absorption of the first
respondent in TRAI. Thereafter, approval of the Chairman was sought for
permanent absorption of the first respondent with effect from the forenoon
W.P. (C) No. 7601/2015 Pag e 10 of 21
of 2nd July, 2013. The note quoted above is the last note after the first
respondent had already tendered his resignation to CRPF.
11. We also have no hesitation in holding and recording that the
petitioner is misrepresenting Regulation 11 (iia) of the 2001 Regulations
quoted above. The Regulation does not give an option to TRAI to apply
either the general principle or the exception. It is a rule, which is
mandatory and does not bestow options to the TRAI. Where the general
principle is applicable, TRAI is bound to follow the said principle.
However, where an employee is entitled to the benefit of the exception,
then his past service would be counted. To accept the contention of the
petitioner would mean giving unguided and unhindered power to TRAI to
decide when the general principle or exception would apply. When the
exception would be applicable, would depend upon whether the conditions
mentioned in the exception are satisfied and is not a matter of discretion or
choice. To give and uphold such unguided and unfettered discretion to
choose, would fall foul of well enshrined principles of administrative law
relating to delegated legislation. Rules/regulations are made to ensure
transparency, objectivity and uniformity and thus reduce and curtail the
scope of arbitrariness. The Rules, therefore, to this extent have an element
of compulsion and are mandatory. There can be a difference of opinion
between two officers when the question of seniority arises, as in the present
W.P. (C) No. 7601/2015 Pag e 11 of 21
case. When the said issue or contention is raised, the dispute is resolved by
making reference to the Rule/regulation and not by resorting to invidious
preferences.
12. This brings us to the interpretation of Regulation 11(iia) of the 2001
Regulation. The first sentence of the Regulation incorporates the rule
which is applicable when a person earlier on deputation is subsequently
absorbed. His seniority in the grade, i.e., the post to which he is appointed
on permanent absorption will be counted from the date of his absorption.
The deputation period is excluded and not counted. This date in the case of
the first respondent would be 2nd July, 2013. The first respondent would
not get his seniority from the date when he had come on deputation and
started working as Section Officer with effect from 7th July, 2011. This is
the effect of the first sentence of the Regulation 11(iia). As this part of the
Regulation is not under challenge, we would not comment and pronounce
on the validity of the said stipulation. However, the first respondent can
get benefit of his past service in the parent department, i.e., the CRPF at the
post of Inspector/Hindi Translator if he satisfies the requirements stipulated
in the second sentence, i.e., the exception. The said requirement is that the
absorbee should be already holding the same or equivalent grade on regular
basis in his parent cadre on the date of absorption. If this condition is
satisfied, then service rendered in the parent cadre on an equivalent post
W.P. (C) No. 7601/2015 Pag e 12 of 21
would be taken into account in fixing his seniority in TRAI. This
exception is also subject to certain conditions stipulated in the later portion
of the said Regulation. The proviso to the Regulation states that fixation of
seniority in terms of the aforesaid rules would not affect any regular
promotion to the next higher grade made prior to the date of absorption.
The proviso, therefore, draws a distinction between seniority and eligibility
for being considered for the next promotion.
13. We shall now examine the terms "grade" and "post" as per the
definition clauses of 2001 Regulations. The terms have been defined as:-
"(iv) „Grade‟ means a grade as specified in clauses 3
and 14;
(v) „Post‟ means any post in a grade whether
permanent or temporary mentioned in Schedules of this
Regulation;"
On referring to Regulations 3 and 14, which deal with constitution of
officers‟ cadre and constitution of staff cadre respectively, we have
reservations on the finding recorded by the Tribunal that Regulation 11(iia)
refers to "grade pay" and not the "post". This finding of the Tribunal, we
hold, is wrong. However, the said finding would not make any difference
to the final outcome for we are clearly of the view that the first respondent
was holding the same or equivalent post as Inspector/Hindi Translator in
his parent department. The file notings that the post of Inspector/Hindi
W.P. (C) No. 7601/2015 Pag e 13 of 21
Translator in CRPF is lower and that Section Officer (Hindi) is a higher
post, is a de hors conclusion and does not set out any reasons as to how the
comparison was made. In fact, we find discrepancies and a disconnect in
the contention raised by the petitioners for they had themselves treated the
first respondent as holding an equivalent or same post in CRPF. It is
accepted that one of the modes for recruitment to the post of Section
Officer (Hindi) are/were deputation and permanent absorption and
absorption by way of transfer. The applicable Regulation for the post of
Section Officer and of the next promotional post of Technical Officer in
this regard read as under:-
"
Name of Mode of Qualification & experience Length of Qualification Age
Post Recruitmen for Direct Recruit service for and experience for
t promotion for deputation Direct
Recrui
t
Technical Promotion/ Degree from a recognized Promotion Officers of the Not
Officer Deputation/ University/Institutions, with 3 from Central exceedi
Absorption/ years experience. However, amongst Government, ng 30
Direct depending on the post to be the officer Public Sector years
Recruitment filled, specific degree in with 3 Undertakings
Electronic and/or years of and Statutory
Telecommunications regular and
Engineering, Commerce, service in a Autonomous
Economics, Accountancy, grade Bodies
Law, or Management, etc., immediatel
may be prescribed based on y below, (i)holding
the need. with equivalent post
working or
knowledge
of (ii)with 3 years
computer of regular
service in a
grade of
Section Officer
or equivalent.
W.P. (C) No. 7601/2015 Pag e 14 of 21
The officer
must possess
the working
knowledge of
computer.
Section Promotion/ Degree from a recognized Promotion Officers of the Not
Officer Deputation/ University/Institutions, with 2 from Central exceedi
/Librarian Absorption/ years of relevant experience. amongst Government, ng 30
Direct For librarian, Degree should the Public Sector years.
Recruitment be in Library Science, with 2 officials Undertakings
years relevant experience. with 6 and Statutory
years of and
regular Autonomous
service in a Bodies.
grade
immediatel (i)Holding
y below equivalent post,
with or
working
knowledge (ii) with 6 years
of of regular
computer. service in
Grade
immediately
below. The
officer must
possess the
working
knowledge of
computer.
"
A reading of the aforesaid Regulation would show that officers from
Central Government, Public Sector Undertakings and statutory and
autonomous bodies holding an equivalent post or those with six years
regular service in the grade immediately below, were eligible provided
they had working knowledge of computer. As noted above, the first
respondent was appointed as Inspector/ Hindi Translator in the CRPF with
effect from 25th April, 2005 in PB-2 in the Grade Pay of Rs.4600, which is
an equal or equivalent grade pay payable to Section Officer (Hindi). The
W.P. (C) No. 7601/2015 Pag e 15 of 21
first respondent, therefore, was not holding a lower post or a post in the
grade immediately below that of Section Officer (Hindi). We would also
notice that this was the reason why the first respondent was given four
increments as deputation allowance on taking over as Section Officer
(Hindi) on deputation. The said deputation allowance would not have been
payable in case the first respondent was holding a lower post or grade in
his parent department. Clearly the first respondent was found to be eligible
for he was holding an equivalent post in the parent department.
14. The first respondent in his pleadings in the OA filed before the
Tribunal had conspicuously and categorically highlighted and alluded to
equivalence by coalescing striking similarities between the post of
Inspector/Hindi Translator and Section Officer (Hindi). For the sake of
completeness, we would like to reproduce the same:-
"
Responsibility and Duties
In CRPF (MHA) In TRAI as Section Officer (Hindi)
To represent from the side of Headquarter No.
during the Official Language Inspection of
Subordinate office carried out by the
Committee of Parliament on Official
Language (High Power Committee
constituted by the President of India.
Act as Member Secretary of Departmental No.
Official Language Committee/Town Official
Language Committee.
To conduct Official Language Inspection of No.
subordinate offices (Units) having strength
of 1200 personnel.
Solely responsible for implementation of Yes. Only in TRAI Office.
Government of India Official Language
policy in subordinate offices.
W.P. (C) No. 7601/2015 Pag e 16 of 21
Solely responsible to arrange Hindi Yes. Only in TRAI Office.
Language/Typing/Stenography/Hindi
workshop training for new appointed
entrants and after training, sanction of
necessary cash reward, increment to them.
Solely responsible to ensure that time to Yes. Only in TRAI Office.
time all Subordinate offices will conduct
necessary activities like conducting of Hindi
workshop/Hindi Diwas/Departmental
Quarterly Official Language meeting.
To Arrange Hindi Computer/Translation Yes. Only in TRAI Office.
Training for subordinate Office staff.
To Supervise implementation of official No.
Languages order/Policy/Act/Rules framed
by Govt of India time to time by subordinate
office in true manner.
Translation work. Yes. Only in TRAI Office.
To give necessary clarification to No.
subordinate office in connection with
Official Language Policy as well as Official
Language Act/Rules of Govt of
India/Financial matter related to Official
Language/Training etc.
Many other responsibility like-Recruitment, No involvement in other work.
Member in various Boards/Committee,
Administration work/organizing various
function etc.
Comparison with respondent No.4, who is No.1 in the seniority list of Section
Officers in TRAI Cadre.
Dinesh Singh Dhanik Smt. P. Janki (Sl. No. 1 of
SO List of TRAI Cadre)
Post Held before 1.1.2006 Inspector (HT) Assistant
(5th CPC)
Date from which the post 25.4.2005 06-12-2001
held
Pay Scale before 6500-200-10500 5500-175-9000
01.01.2006 Group B Post Group B Post
Pay Scale on 01.01.2006 PB-2 Rs.9300-34800 with PB-2 Rs.9300-34800 with
(as per 6th CPC scale) Grade Pay 4600/- Grade pay 4200/-
Promotion in next Post Holding same pay scale till Promoted from Assistant to
absorption in TRAI on Section Officer 01/01/2009
02/07/2013 and placed in pay scale of
PB-2 Rs.9300-34800 with
Grade Pay 4600/-
"
15. The only contention raised by the petitioner to negate the claim for
equality is predicated on the fact that the next promotional post in the cadre
of Inspector/Hindi Translator in the CRPF was to the post of Subedar
W.P. (C) No. 7601/2015 Pag e 17 of 21
Major in PB-2 (Rs.9300-34800) with Grade Pay of Rs.4800, whereas in
TRAI it was that of Technical Officer in PB-3 (Rs.15600-39100) with
Grade Pay of Rs.5400. We have considered the said disconnect, but
observe the said argument to be feeble and weak in the light of other
similarities justifying equivalence. Grade Pay of Rs.4800, as stipulated for
the promotional post of Subedar Major in CRPF, is in terms of the next
higher grade pay in the First Schedule, Part-A of Section -I of the Central
Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. In TRAI, which is a small
organization, the next promotion was to PB-3 and not PB-2 and carries a
Grade Pay of Rs.5400. Grade Pays of Rs.4800 and Rs.5400 in the
hierarchy of PB-2 have been ignored and do not exist in TRAI. However,
this divergence alone would not be a good ground to hold that the two
posts were not equivalent. The applicable Regulation for appointment to
the post of Technical Officer has been quoted in paragraph 13 above. The
post of Technical Officer in TRAI could be filled by way of promotion,
deputation, absorption or direct recruitment. For promotion, an officer
with three years regular service in the grade immediately below is eligible
provided he has working knowledge of computer. For the purpose of
deputation/absorption, officers of Central Government, Public Sector
Undertakings and statutory authorities and autonomous bodies, holding
equivalent posts are eligible provided the officers has three years of regular
W.P. (C) No. 7601/2015 Pag e 18 of 21
service in the grade of Section Officer or equivalent, i.e., PB-2 with Grade
Pay of Rs.4600. To this extent, eligibility requirements for the post of
Technical Officer in TRAI and Subedar Major in CRPF are
undistinguishable. The first respondent, we have noted above, had three
years experience in the grade of Section Officer, i.e., Grade Pay of Rs.4600
in PB-2 when he was absorbed as Section Officer (Hindi) in TRAI. Thus,
the first respondent on absorption, even when taken on deputation was
meeting the said eligibility requirement. Thus, the eligibility for promotion
as a Technical Officer in TRAI and as a Subedar Major in CRPF were
identical, but the promotional posts were in different scales. We agree that
this would not be a ground to hold that the post of Section Officer (Hindi)
and Inspector/Hindi Translator are equivalent, but this would be one of the
factors to be considered when we examine whether the post held by the
first respondent in the CRPF was an equivalent post. The petitioner has not
countered the other similarities pointed out by the first respondent, which
were also mentioned in his representation dated 23rd August, 2013.
16. The last submission made on behalf of the petitioner was predicated
on the representation of the first respondent dated 10 th December, 2012
when the said respondent had made a written request for absorption as the
Section Officer (Hindi). In this letter, he has referred to his work in TRAI
and the responsibility shared by him and has stated that in TRAI, the first
W.P. (C) No. 7601/2015 Pag e 19 of 21
respondent was holding the same pay scale as in CRPF, but had greater
responsibility. Further, the pay scale in TRAI was lower in comparison to
the actual pay being paid to him in the CRPF, as he was entitled to ration,
washing allowance, etc. and other facilities in form of free uniform, CGHS,
cashless hospital treatment, free medicines, subsidized canteen, bonus, etc.
in the CRPF. This letter written by the first respondent seeking permanent
absorption is in the nature of a prayer. It tends to acclaim and praise the
work and opportunity he has in TRAI. Pertinently, this letter also mentions
that the first respondent was working in the same pay scale in CRPF for the
last seven years and possesses a Master‟s degree in Hindi and had 20 years
of experience in the field, i.e., translation from Hindi to English and vice-
versa. The said statement has to be read in context and would not operate
as estoppel or a binding admission, which cannot be understood and
explained. Several letters were written by the first respondent to TRAI.
For the principle of estoppel to apply, it has to be shown that the petitioner
had acted on the promise or statement made. File notings do not record
that this statement was the basis of absorption. Further, in the present case
seniority would be determined by applying the statutory rules and legal
principles for determining whether the two posts were equivalent and not
on the basis of a statement.
W.P. (C) No. 7601/2015 Pag e 20 of 21
17. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in
the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. In the facts of the case,
there will be no order as to costs.
-sd-
(SANJIV KHANNA)
JUDGE
-sd-
(NAJMI WAZIRI)
JUDGE
MAY 19, 2016
VKR
W.P. (C) No. 7601/2015 Pag e 21 of 21
