Delhi High Court
Sh. Sanjeev Kumar And Ors. vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 27 January, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 7873/2007
% 27th January, 2017
SH. SANJEEV KUMAR AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. S.K. Gupta, Advocate.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Satyakam, Advocate for R-1 & 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the three petitioners seek the relief of being granted a particular
higher scale of pay under the ACP scheme dated 9.8.1999 and which
became applicable to Lab Assistants by the order of the Directorate of
Education dated 2.6.2006. The issue in this case is what is the higher grade
of pay to which petitioners are entitled to in view of the applicability of the
ACP scheme to the petitioners who are Lab Assistants.
2. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent nos. 1 and
2/Directorate of Education shows that the petitioners on account of grant of
first upgradation under the ACP scheme have been granted pay scale of
W.P.(C) No. 7873/2007 Page 1 of 5
Rs.4500-Rs.7000 in terms of the DPC meeting of the respondent nos. 3 and
4/school dated 24.2.2010 and hence the stand of respondent nos. 1 and 2/
Directorate of Education is that the petitioners having already been granted
the higher pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000, hence the petitioners cannot
claim the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000/-.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to
the recruitment rules for appointment as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT)
and these rules do show that the feeder cadre for appointment to the post of
TGT includes Lab Assistants. This is clear from paragraphs 11 and 12 of
the Recruitment Rules of TGT dated 5.7.1972 as amended by subsequent
notifications of 11.12.1991 and 1.10.1999.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners have then taken me through
the ACP scheme paragraph 7 read with Annexure-II and as per which the
higher pay grade from Rs.4000-100-6000/- to Rs.4500-125-7000/- will
apply only to isolated posts and not to posts which are hierarchical posts.
This paragraph 7 of the ACP scheme and the relevant portion of Annexure-
II reads as under:-
1. Paragraph 7 of ACP scheme
"7. Financial upgradation under the Scheme shall be given to the next
higher grade in accordance with the existing hierarchy in a cadre/category of
posts without creating new posts for the purpose. However, in case of isolated
W.P.(C) No. 7873/2007 Page 2 of 5
posts, in the absence of defined hierarchical grades financial upgradation shall
be given by Ministries/Departments concerned in the immediately next higher
(standard/common) pay-scales as indicated in Annexure-II which is in keeping
with Part-A of the First Schedule annexed to the Notification, dated September
30, 1997 of the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure). For
instance, incumbents of isolated posts in the pay-scale S-4, as indicated in
Annexure-II, will be eligible for the proposed two financial upgradation only
to the pay-scales S-5 and S-6. Financial upgradation on a dynamic basis (i.e.,
without having to create posts in the relevant scales of pay) has been
recommended by the Fifth Central Pay Commission only for the incumbents of
isolated posts who have no avenues of promotion at all. Since financial
upgradations under the Scheme shall be personal to the incumbent of the
isolated post, the same shall be filled at its original level (pay scale) when
vacated. Posts which are part of a well-defined cadre shall not qualify for the
ACP Scheme on „dynamic‟ basis. The ACP benefits in their case shall be
granted conforming to the existing hierarchical structure only."
2. Annexure - II
"... MOST IMMEDIDATE
ANNEXURE -II
STANDARD/COMMON PAY SCALES
As per Part-A of the First Schedule Annexed to the Ministry of Finance
(Department of Expenditure) Gazette Notification,
Dated September 30, 1997
[Reference Para. 7 of Annexure-I of this Office Memorandum]
S. Revised pay scales
NO. Rs.
1. S-1 2,550-55-2,660-60-3,200
2. S-2 2,610-60-3,150-65-3,540
3. S-3 2,650-65-3,300-70-4,000
4. S-4 2,750-70-3,800-75-4,400
5. S-5 3,050-75-3,950-80-4,590
6. S-6 3,200-85-4,900
7. S-7 4,000-100-6,000
8. S-8 4,500-125-7,000
9. S-9 5,000-150-8,000
10. S-10 5,500-175-9,000
11. S-12 6,500-200-10,500
...
...
...
5. It is, therefore, clear from a reading of paragraph 7 of the ACP
scheme read with Annexure-II that the pay scale is increased from Rs.4000-
6000/- to Rs.4500-7000/- only if the post is an isolated post, but in the
present case the post of Lab Assistant is not an isolated post, but is in the
hierarchy of posts and is a feeder cadre post to the next higher promotion
post of TGT. The pay scale for the post of TGT is Rs.5500-9000/- as
revised, and therefore, once the higher post of TGT is a hierarchical post
along with the post of Lab Assistant which is a feeder cadre post for the post
of TGT, the respondents have therefore fallen into an error in taking the post
of Lab Assistant as an isolated post i.e a non-hierarchical post.
6. Petitioners posts of Lab Assistants should be taken as
hierarchical posts being the feeder cadre post for appointment to the
higher/promotion posts of TGT, and since the pay scale for the post of TGT
is Rs.5500-9000/-, petitioners hence have to be granted this pay scale of Rs.
5500-9000/- and not Rs. Rs.4500-7000/- as has been granted by the
respondents to the petitioners in the present case.
7. In view of the above this writ petition is allowed and the
petitioners will be granted the higher pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 instead of
Rs.4500-7000 and the petitioners will be entitled to this higher scale of pay
of Rs. 5500-9000 in terms of DPC meeting of the respondent nos. 3 and 4/
school dated 24.2.2010.
8. The petition is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of, leaving
the parties to bear their own costs. The respondents will process the
monetary dues which are payable to the petitioners in terms of this judgment
expeditiously and the payments be made to the petitioners preferably within
a period of three months from today.
JANUARY 27, 2017/AK VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
