Delhi High Court
Jagdish Kumar Koli vs National Bal Bhavan & Anr on 19 March, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: March 19, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 2540/2018
JAGDISH KUMAR KOLI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jai Bansal, Advocate
versus
NATIONAL BAL BHAVAN & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Roshan Lal Goel and Ms. Anju
Gupta, Advocates for respondent No.2-UOI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Petitioner claims to be working as Manager (Publication) with
respondent-National Bal Bhawan since the year 2004 and it is the case of
petitioner that in view of the proceedings of 24th October, 2011 of
National Commission for Scheduled Castes (Annexure P-3), One Man
Committee was set up by second respondent and this Committee vide its
Report of 5th May, 2014 (Annexure P-8) had concluded that petitioner is
not being harassed on account of his minority status. Petitioner further
claims that in March, 2012, he had sought revision of his Grade Pay from
`4200/- to `5400/- and in July, 2012, respondent-National Bal Bhawan in
its Communication of 2nd July, 2012 (Annexure P-10) had recommended
to second respondent to upgrade petitioner's Grade Pay to `5400/-.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as per proposal of
Ministry of Human Resource Development (Annexure P-11 colly.) made
on 6th February, 2013, the post of Manager (Publication), National Bal
Bhawan and Assistant Director (Publication), ICHR is equal, but the pay
scale is less. Hence, the matter was referred to Ministry of Finance.
Attention of this Court is drawn to Office Noting of 19th September, 2012
(Annexure P-12) of Ministry of Finance, which indicates that the proposal
to upgrade petitioner's Grade Pay from `4200/- to `5400/- in PB-III was
not agreed to. In the Office Noting of 22nd March, 2013 (Annexure P-12),
Ministry of Finance has noted that post of Manager (Publication) is a
Group 'C' isolated post whereas, the post of Assistant Director
(Publication) in ICHR is a Group 'A' post and so, the comparison
between the two posts cannot be drawn as parity cannot be sought on the
basis of educational qualifications alone.
3. It is evident from Ministry of Human Resource Development's
Communication of 17th February, 2014 (Annexure P-15) that petitioner
had submitted a Representation on 31st December, 2013, which was
examined by Ministry of Human Resource Development and National
Commission for Scheduled Castes was intimated vide Communication
(Annexure P-15) that revision of pay-scale has not been accepted by
Ministry of Finance and as per Rules of Business, the concurrence of
Ministry of Finance is mandatory for such proposals. It was also
intimated that as per Rules, petitioner would be eligible for MACP
benefits on completion of qualifying service and that no case of
discrimination or harassment of petitioner is made out.
4. As per Communication of 13th May, 2015 (Annexure P-16),
National Commission for Scheduled Castes had recommended to
Ministry of Human Resource Development to examine case of petitioner
for upgradation of scale/grade pay at par with other organizations of
Ministry of Human Resource Development. According to petitioner's
counsel, there was no response to aforesaid Communication (Annexure P-
16) by Ministry of Human Resource Development and petitioner had
represented to the Ministry of Finance on 26th May, 2016 vide
Representation (Annexure P-20) to reconsider the matter. Petitioner's
counsel claims that there was no response to his Representation of 26 th
May, 2016 (Annexure P-20) made to the Secretary, Ministry of Finance.
5. Upon hearing and on perusal of the material on record, I find that
petitioner vide Representation of 26th May, 2016 (Annexure P-20) had
sought reconsideration of revision of his pay scale while referring to Rule
14 of the Bye-Laws of National Bal Bhawan. Although there is no
response to petitioner's Representation (Annexure P-20), still the plea on
which petitioner has sought revision of his pay scale has to be principally
addressed by National Bal Bhawan as it is the case of petitioner that as
per the aforesaid Rule, there is no need of any concurrence from Ministry
of Finance. Attention of this Court has not been drawn to any
Communication made by petitioner to National Bal Bhawan to indicate
that such a plea was earlier raised.
6. Since the aforesaid plea goes to the root of the matter, therefore, it
is deemed appropriate to dispose of this petition with liberty to petitioner
to make a concise Representation to National Bal Bhawan within a period
of two weeks to seek reconsideration of his case for revision of
upgradation of pay-scale in light of Rule 14 of the Bye-Laws of National
Bal Bhawan or to make out a case for promotional avenues and in the
alternative to seek the benefit under the Modified Assured Career
Progression (MACP) Scheme. Upon receipt of such a Representation,
respondent-National Bal Bhawan shall pass a speaking order within a
period of six weeks on the Representation so made and the fate of
Representation be conveyed to petitioner within two weeks thereafter, so
that petitioner may avail of the remedies as available in law, if need be.
7. Since none has appeared on behalf of respondent-National Bal
Bhawan, therefore, respondent-National Bal Bhawan be apprised of this
order forthwith, to ensure its compliance.
8. With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.
Copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for petitioner.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 19, 2018
s
