Delhi High Court
Sachidanand vs Union Of India And Ors on 17 February, 2017
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1363/2017
Date of Decision : 17th February, 2017
SACHIDANAND ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. A.K. Trivedi with Mr. Abhishek
Tiwari and Mr. Vaibhav
Trivedi,Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Prasanta Varma,Sr. Central Govt.
Counsel with Mr. Vijay Goswami,
Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):
By the impugned order dated 22.02.2016 OA No. 1508/2016
filed by the petitioner - Sachindanand has been dismissed by the
Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
2. This is the second round of litigation as the High Court in W.P.
(C) No. 8939/2007 vide order dated 27.09.2013 had earlier set aside
the first order dated 14.02.2007 passed by the Tribunal with remand
for fresh consideration. For the sack of clarity and for appreciation
of the controversy, we would like to reproduce this order dated
27.09.2013 which reads as under:-
"1. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has not
discussed the real issue which arises for consideration.
Regretfully, the Tribunal has not even noted the material
clauses of the policy circular dated May 20,2003
pertaining to restructuring of the cadre of Artisan staff in
Defence Establishment. The Tribunal has not noted
paragraph 2, 3 (b) (c) and (e) as also sub-para (vii) of
para 4, which we note read as under:-
"2. The grade structure in the industrial as well
as in the non-industrial trades wherever already available
and the pay-scales of the Defence artisan staff shall stand
modified w.e.f. 1.1.96 as under:-
(i) Skilled : Rs.3050-4500
(ii) Highly Skilled : Rs. 4000-6000
(iii) Master Craftsman : Rs.4500-7000
3.(a) xxxx
(b) The post of Master Crafsman shall not be part of
hierarchy and the placement in this grade will not be
treated as promotion for Highly Skilled Grade either
under normal promotion rules or under ACP Scheme.
(c) The selection from Highly Skilled grade to the
grade of Master Craftsman shall be 10% of Highly
Skilled Cadre (i.e. 10% of 35% of the total and the
placement in this grade shall be w.e.f. 1.1.96 and upto the
date of issue of these orders.
(d) xxxx
(e) The above provision may be made application, as a
special case. In relaxation of the existing
rules/instructions to the employees who have either
retired or died after 1.1.96.
4(i) to (vi) xxxx
(vii) The placement of the individuals in the posts
resulting from the above restructuring and ration revision
shall be made from the date of issue of the orders, in
relaxation of the conditions, if any, as one time measure."
2. Whereas sub-para (vii) of paragraph 4 clearly
states that placement of the individuals in the posts
resulting from the restructuring would be a onetime
measure and shall be made from the date of issue of the
order, sub-para © and (e) of paragraph 3 required the
cadre restructuring and placement in the grads with
effect from 1.1.96. As per sub-para (b) of para 3 the post
of Master Craftsman is not a part of the hierarchy. At the
same time sub-para (e) of para 3 states that the
applicability of the policy circular shall be treated as a
special case and in relxation of the existing Rules
/instructions.
3. Whereas the writ petitioner argues that there being
no post of Master Craftsman above the post of Operator
Material handling equipment (OMHE) which the
respondent was holding and thus would urge that the
question of there being any Recruitment Rules for the
post does not arise and thus the occasion for applicability
of sub-para (e) of para 3 does not even come into being.
On the contrary, the respondent would urge that as a
result of three grades, irrespective of posts being in
existing or not benefit has to flow.
4. It was for the Tribunal to have noted the provisions
as also the respective contentions and thereafter dealt
with the same.
5. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition setting
aside the impugned order dated February 14, 2007. We
restore OA No. 1508/2006 for fresh adjudication and for
which parties shall appear before the Registrar of the
Tribunal on November 11, 2013.
6. No costs.
3. The impugned order goes into the factual matrix of the case and
has come to the conclusion that Operator Material Handling
Equipment (OMHE) service to which the petitioner belongs did not
have the post-cadre of Master Craftsman.
4. This being the factual position, the Tribunal was right in
holding that paragraph 4 of the circular dated 20.05.2003 was
applicable and promotion/upgradation as Master Craftsman (MCM)
would not be retrospective with effect from 01.01.1996 but would be
effective prospectively. The post of Master Craftsman was created
in the OMHE service for the first time vide circular dated 20.05.2003.
Therefore, promotion/upgradation to the said post of Master
Craftsman would be prospective.
5. The writ petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.
There would be no order as to costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J
FEBRUARY 17, 2017
b
