Rajender Prasad Yadav vs North Delhi Municipal ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1461 Del

$~3.
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                        WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 2400/2017
                                           Date of decision: 17th March, 2017
        RAJENDER PRASAD YADAV                                 ..... Petitioner
                              Through Mr. Robin George, Advocate.
                              versus
        NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR.
                                                            ..... Respondents
                              Through Mr. Pratap Singh, Mr. Navneet Tripathi
                              & Mr. Sayad Sadiq Hussain, Advocates for
                              respondent No. 1.
                              Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC for respondent No. 2.
        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):

        Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we are not inclined
to interfere with the impugned order dated 18th March, 2016 passed by the
Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal, for
short) whereby TA No. 32/2012 filed by the petitioner-Rajender Prasad
Yadav and one Dharam Pal Gupta has been dismissed.
2.      The petitioner was appointed as Kendra Sahayak Centre Attendant
on 2nd April, 1973 and was regularised with effect from 1St April, 1974. In
1982, the petitioner had appeared in the Limited Departmental Competitive
Examination (LDCE) and was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk
(LDC). However, the petitioner subsequently, on his request, was reverted
to the post of Attendant, on 25th March, 1983.
3.      The Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP Scheme) was
introduced with effect from 9th August, 1999 with an aim to deal with the
problem of stagnation and lack of promotion. The ACP scheme stipulated
grant of two financial upgradations on completion of 12 and 24 years of
W.P. (C) No. 2400/2017                                               Page 1 of 3
 service, provided the officer had not been promoted. The grievance of the
petitioner pertains to grant of 1st financial upgradation under the ACP
Scheme.
4.      As the petitioner was granted promotion as LDC and on his own
request was reverted to the post of Attendant, he was granted second
financial upgradation on completing 24 years of regular service on 23 rd
July, 2004. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted as Labour Welfare
Organiser in the year 2009 and retired from the said post on 31st January,
2011.
5.      In the year 2000, the petitioner had filed a civil suit seeking decree
of mandatory injunction and also grant of first benefit under the ACP
Scheme. This civil suit was transferred to the Tribunal and registered as
TA No. 32/2012 which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated
18th March, 2016. The Tribunal in the impugned order has rejected the
prayer of the petitioner for grant of 1st ACP for he was already granted
promotion as an LDC.
6.      The short question which arises for consideration is whether the
petitioner's promotion as LDC should be taken into consideration for the
purpose of ACP Scheme. If this promotion is taken into consideration, the
petitioner would not be entitled to benefit of the first financial upgradation
for the ACP scheme stipulates grant of the first financial upgradation after
12 years in service where no promotion has been granted.
7.      The answer is luminescent and obvious. The petitioner had earned
promotion as LDC, which post the petitioner had joined and later on his
own request was reverted. The pay scale of the Attendant, even after
reversion was lower than the pay scale of the LDC.            Therefore, the
petitioner would not be entitled to first financial upgradation under the
ACP Scheme.
7.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment dated 6th
May, 1995 passed in Civil Suit No. 742/1993, Rajender Prasad Yadav
W.P. (C) No. 2400/2017                                               Page 2 of 3
 versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The petitioner had filed the civil
suit for declaration and mandatory injunction and the same was decreed
stating that the petitioner was entitled to revised pay scale as applicable to
the post of Centre Attendant with effect from 14th February, 1983 on his
reversion to the post of Centre Attendant with effect from 25 th March,
1983. The pay scale of Centre Attendant had been revised with effect from
22nd February, 1983, but the benefit of the said pay scale was not being
given from the said date to the petitioner, for at that time he was working
as an LDC and was reverted to the original post of Centre Attendant on 25th
March, 1983. The said judgment observes that it was not the case of the
authorities that the post of LDC was a promotional post from the post of
Centre Attendant through proper channel in technical sense. We do not
think the said observations can come to the aid and assistance of the
petitioner. LDCE is only a method of promotion. This has clearly been the
ratio of several decisions of the Division Benches of this Court. Reference
can be made to Man Singh Vs. Union of India (2013) 196 DLT (CN) 48
(DB).
8.      In view of the aforesaid legal position, the petitioner's appointment
as LDC on his clearing the LDCE has to be treated as first promotion.
        The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. No costs.


                                              SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J. MARCH 17, 2017 VKR