Delhi High Court
Kirti Khandelwal vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 16 February, 2018
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Order: February 16, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 11828/2016
KIRTI KHANDELWAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Jyoti Singh, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.Himanshu Gautam, Advocate
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate for R-4
Ms.Prabhsahay Kaur, Advocate for R-1 to
R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Petitioner is a Statistical Assistant in the Respondent-Institute who
had sought parity with Statistical Assistants of Planning and Statistical
Cadre in the Government of NCT of Delhi vide Representation of 27th
August, 2008 (Annexure P-5 Colly). The said Representation was addressed
to the Respondent-Institute and it stands declined vide impugned order of
21st April, 2015 (Annexure P-1) while noting that petitioner's case for
upgradation of pay scale was put up before the Finance Department of
Government of NCT of Delhi for approval and it has been turned down with
the following remarks :
"It appears that pay scales of the post of Statistical Assistant
of NSIT are not comparable with the post of Statistical
Assistant of Planning & Statistical, GNCTD. In view of this
NSIT may be advised to extend the normal replacement pay
scale corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale of the post as
incorporated in Section I & II of part A of the First Schedule
W.P.(C) No.11828/2016 Page 1
to the CCS (revised pay) Rules to the Statistical Asstt. Of
NSIT."
2. Learned senior counsel for petitioner draws attention of this Court to
petitioner's appointment letter (Annexure P-2) wherein it is clearly provided
that the Respondent-Institute shall follow Government of India/Government
of Delhi Rules in respect of the pay and allowances.
3. It is matter of record that at the time of petitioner's appointment, the
pay scale offered to her was at par with the pay scale being given to
Statistical Assistants in Government of NCT of Delhi. In the counter
affidavit filed by Respondent-Institute, it is asserted that there was a
restructuring of pay scales of Statistical Assistants in Government of NCT of
Delhi and so, the case of petitioner cannot be treated at par with that of
Statistical Assistants in Government of NCT of Delhi.
4. To controvert the aforesaid stand, learned senior counsel for petitioner
draws attention of this Court to the Office Noting of 5th December, 2014
(Annexure P-16 Colly) of the Finance Department of Government of NCT of
Delhi, to point out that the Finance Department has declared that it has no
role to play in matters of grant of pay scale concerning the Respondent-
Institute. Not only this, Government of NCT of Delhi vide its
Communication of 11th August, 2016 (Annexure P-16 Colly) has clarified
that the pay scales as approved by Government of Delhi shall be applicable
to faculty staff of Respondent-Institute and the approval of the Government
is necessary only for creation of a post in the Respondent-Institute.
5. Learned counsel for Respondent-Institute submits that initially
petitioner's case was recommended for upgradation of pay-scale but due to
W.P.(C) No.11828/2016 Page 2
the objection of the Finance Department as contained in the Office Noting of
11th March, 2015 (Annexure P-10 Colly), it has been turned down.
6. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order and the material on
record, I find that the impugned order is solely premised on the Office
Noting of 11th March, 2015 (Annexure P-10 Colly) of the Finance
Department. In fact, petitioner's Representation is required to be re-
considered by respondent No.3 in light of the Office Noting (Annexure P-16
Colly) of the Finance Department of Government of NCT of Delhi and their
Communication of 11th August, 2016.
7. At this stage, learned senior counsel for petitioner on instructions
submits that a concise Representation would be made to respondent No.3 to
seek parity in the matter of pay scales with the Statistical Assistants in the
Government of NCT of Delhi and this Representation would be made within
a period of one week. If such a representation is received by respondent
No.3, then it be considered in light of its Office Noting (Annexure P-16
Colly) and Communication of 11th August, 2016 and a speaking order be
passed on petitioner's Representation by the Competent Authority within a
period of six weeks and the fate of the representation be made known to
petitioner within a week thereafter so that petitioner may avail of the remedy
as available in law, if need be.
8. With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 16, 2018/mamta
W.P.(C) No.11828/2016 Page 3
