Delhi High Court
Renu Bakshi vs High Court Of Delhi on 11 January, 2018
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% DECIDED ON: 11.01.2018
+ W.P. (C) 6741/2014
RENU BAKSHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sahila Lamba, Advocate.
Versus
HIGH COURT OF DELHI ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, Adv. for
DHC with Ms. Suveni Bhagat and Mr.
Shaurya Kuthiala, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. CHAWLA
S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner seeks a direction that the benefit of Non-
Functional Pay Scale ("NFPS") should be accorded to her w.e.f.
13.05.1998 when she became eligible for it.
2. The facts relevant to this case are that the petitioner was
working with the Delhi High Court establishment; at the relevant time,
i.e., in 1997-98, she was Sr. Judicial Assistant ("SJA") (in `9300-
34,800 with GP `4800). She completed four years in that pay on
13.05.1998. At that time, the NFPS was not available; by reasons of a
policy of the Court - the order for which was made on 25.08.2006,
employees eligible to that benefit, i.e., those who completed four years
in the grade of SJA or equivalent thereto at the relevant stage were
entitled to the NFPS. The policy required that the benefits were to be
given notionally w.e.f. 01.01.1996 (i.e. in terms of fitment/fixation)
and the actual monetary benefits were to flow i.e. and were granted
w.e.f. 03.10.2003. The petitioner contends that in terms of the policy,
besides the four years‟ experience in the cadre of SJA, the individual
also had to possess the vigilance clearance at the time of his or her
consideration for the NFPS. According to the petitioner, the vigilance
clearance in respect of her case was obtained on 10.11.2016 but the
benefit actually withheld for a considerable amount of time and
instead she was granted on 01.07.2013 and made effective from the
same date.
3. Ms. Saahila Lamba, learned counsel for the petitioner contends
that in terms of the Office Memorandum of 25.01.2006 issued by the
Department of Personnel & Training, Central Government, the cadre
authorities could grant NFPS `8000-275-13,500 subject to fulfillment
of three conditions. Firstly that the incumbent had to complete four
years of approved service in the grade subject to vigilance clearance;
consequently notional pay fixation was to be given from 01.01.1996
though actual benefits were to accrue from 03.10.2003 and that lastly
the officers were to be entitled to the arrears of pay with effect from
the latter date. The scheme was adopted by the establishment of this
Court by orders of the Chief Justice on 17.08.2006. It is submitted
that though the petitioner faced some enquiries and charges, in several
of them she was exonerated or the period of penalty/disciplinary
orders were suffered. It is highlighted that the petitioner was entitled
to be considered from the date she completed the four years‟ period,
i.e., 13.05.1998. Though, at that time, an enquiry was pending against
her in respect of minor penalty charges (having been initiated on
02.05.1996), the exoneration was recorded by the competent authority
on 17.05.1999. On the latter date, there was no impediment in the
petitioner‟s entitlement to the NFPS. It is submitted that the High
Court establishment‟s reliance upon the subsequent charges and the
pendency of disciplinary proceedings cannot obscure the fact that at
least from 17.05.1999 till 2001, the respondent High Court could have
obtained the vigilance clearance and granted the NFPS benefit. Its
failure to do so, complains the petitioner‟s counsel, is arbitrary.
4. Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, Advocate appearing on behalf of the
Delhi High Court points out that the establishment is not obliged to
consider the case of every employee or official on a day to day basis
but rather has to consider the case on a reasonable basis when the
claims of all concerns are considered en masse. Counsel relies upon a
chart extracted in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit and states that
even though the petitioner was cleared of the charges leveled on
02.05.1996 on 17.05.1999, nevertheless, soon thereafter, a preliminary
enquiry was initiated on (25.01.2000). This led to her indictment for
misconduct and ultimate penalty of censure on 03.12.2002. It is
submitted that subsequently too, preliminary enquiries were conducted
followed by regular enquiry, later resulting in penalty such as
stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, warning, stoppage
of one increment without cumulative effect (on 17.09.2011) etc.
5. The chart relied upon by the High Court is extracted below: -
S. Preliminary Date of Date of Decision
No. Inquiry/Regular initiation Decision
Inquiry
1. Regular Inquiry 02.05.1996 17.05.1999 Charges stand not
proved. The
petitioner was
exonerated.
2. Preliminary 25.01.2000 17.05.2000 The Petitioner was
Inquiry held responsible for
loss of documents
filed by the plaintiff
in Suit
No.1637/1997.
Regular Inquiry 03.12.2002 The Petitioner be
05.03.2001
'censured' and it be
placed on her
record with a clear
warning to her that
any lapse on her
part will render her
to strict disciplinary
action in future.
3. Preliminary 21.04.2005 (on 02.09.2005 As per preliminary
Inquiry the complaint inquiry report, it
dated was found that
10.01.2005) either the Petitioner
or Mrs. Savitri
Arora, SJA is
responsible for the
loss of files.
Regular Inquiry 08.03.2006 27.09.2006 A penalty of
stoppage of two
increments with
cumulative effect
imposed on the
Petitioner and Ms.
Savitri Arora.
4. Preliminary 25.04.2005 (on 29.05.2005 Vide preliminary
Inquiry the complaint inquiry report, the
dated Petitioner was held
16.08.2004) responsible for
delay in tracing the
documents.
A warning was
issued to the
Official with a
direction to place
the same on C.R.
file.
5. Preliminary 24.03.2005 22.03.2007 It was held that the
Inquiry preliminary inquiry
shows the failure on
the part of the
Petitioner in
maintaining
devotion to duty and
reflect adoption by
her of dilatory
tactics to willfully
cause delay.
Regular Inquiry 02.04.2007 31.07.2011 Charges not proved.
6. Preliminary 17.09.2007 07.12.2007 The Petitioner was
Inquiry held responsible for
the loss of original
Arbitration Award
and proceedings
relating thereto
submitted by Shri
A.S. Gahlawat, Sole
Arbitrator.
Regular Inquiry 05.02.2008 17.09.2011 A penalty of
stoppage of one
increment without
cumulative effect
imposed on the
Petitioner.
The narration as evident would reveal that on 25.08.2006, the Central
Government‟s policy for NFPS was adopted by the Court.
Undoubtedly, at that stage, the petitioner was facing disciplinary
proceedings in the form of regular enquiry initiated on 08.03.2006.
That was preceded by preliminary enquiry based upon a complaint
initiated on 21.04.2005. This Court is of the opinion that there is merit
in the High Court‟s contention with respect to the petitioner‟s claim
for entitlement to be considered on the basis of her eligibility as on
13.05.1998. At this stage or even later, she could not claim as a matter
of right that the NFPS had to be given. If at all from 17.05.1999 for a
brief period of six months, the entitlement to be considered would
have arisen. However, the Court has to keep in mind the fact that the
establishment had to review the cases of various individuals after
28.05.2006 on a case by case basis. At that time, the establishment‟s
not granting the benefit with effect from the date claimed by her or
after 17.05.1999 cannot be faulted because the window period was
very brief. Preliminary enquiry was started on 25.01.2000, barely six
months after the ending of the previous enquiry. However, this Court
is of the opinion that for the period 03.12.2002 to 21.04.2005, there
was in fact no impediment - except the "censure" which was to be
placed on her service records. That order of censure cannot result in
an indefinite black mark on the service record; it only had a finite
duration. Consequently when the petitioner‟s claim was actually
considered - which was done in 2013, the High Court overlooked that
for almost three years (subject to the completion of the effect of
„censure‟ on her record) there was no impediment to the grant of
NFPS. In these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the
High Court establishment should review the record of the petitioner
for the period 03.12.2002 to 21.04.2005 and determine firstly whether
her case could be considered to be clear from the vigilance angle and
if so take necessary action by way of fixing the NFPS from the
concerned date in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated
25.01.2006 and grant the necessary benefits. It is, however, clarified
that the benefits which would be by way of differential salary and
terminal payments would be subject to the withholding of pay and
other penalties imposed by the High Court for the duration that the
petitioner actually suffered it.
6. The above directions shall be complied with by the
respondent/DHC within eight weeks from today.
7. The writ petition is partly allowed in the above terms.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
A.K. CHAWLA
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 11, 2018
/vikas/
