Delhi High Court
Rajender Prasad Sharma vs The Commissioner North Delhi ... on 6 April, 2021
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1790/2020
RAJENDER PRASAD SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.R.K Shukla, Adv.
versus
THE COMMISSIONER NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Tushar Sannu, Ms.Ankita
Bhadouriya and Mr.Subham Jain,
Advs. for North DMC
Mrs.Bharathi Raju, Adv. for UOI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
ORDER
% 06.04.2021
1. The petition impugns the order dated 11th December, 2019 of Central
Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi of dismissal of
O.A. No. 4134/2014 preferred by the petitioner.
2. The said O.A. was preferred, contending that the benefit of III
Financial Upgradation under Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme
(MACP) for the Central Government Civilian Employees granted to the
petitioner had not been correctly computed. It was the contention of the
petitioner before CAT, that (a) he was in Pay Band-2 with Grade Pay of
Rs.5400/- and the MACP benefit was granted by moving him to Pay Band-3
but with the same Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-; (b) the petitioner, on trifurcation
W.P.(C) 1790/2020 page 1 of 3
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned
By:MEENAKSHI PANT
Signing Date:09.04.2021
15:01:58
of erstwhile Municipal Corporation of Delhi, had been allocated to the
respondent North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NrDMC), while some
other batch mates of the petitioner had been allocated to South Delhi
Municipal Corporation (SDMC) which had granted to them the benefit of
MACP, by placing them in a Pay Band-3 with Grade Pay of Rs.6600/-.
3. CAT, in the impugned order has reasoned, that the benefit of MACP
had been correctly computed and no fault can be found therewith. It has
further been held that merely because SDMC has wrongly computed the
benefit of MACP to those similarly situated as the petitioner, was no reason
for directing the respondent NrDMC also, to commit the same mistake.
4. The counsel for the petitioner fairly agrees that the MACP has been
correctly computed by placing the petitioner in Pay Band-3 with Grade Pay
of Rs.5400/-. He however raises the same argument as urged before CAT
i.e. of the petitioner being entitled to be treated similarly as his batchmates
allocated to SDMC.
5. Once the counsel for the petitioner also admits that the MACP granted
to the petitioner has been correctly computed, no error can be found in the
reasoning given by CAT, of denying similar treatment to the petitioner as his
batchmates in SDMC, who had been wrongly conferred the MACP benefit
more than they were entitled to. In application of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India, there is no concept of negative equality and merely
because other similarly placed persons as the petitioner have been granted
something more than they are entitled to in law, would not entitle the
petitioner also thereto, till the petitioner makes out an entitlement thereto in
W.P.(C) 1790/2020 page 2 of 3
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned
By:MEENAKSHI PANT
Signing Date:09.04.2021
15:01:58
law. Reference in this regard may be made to Chandigarh Administration
Vs. Jagjit Singh AIR 1995 SC 705, State of Orissa Vs. Mamata Mohanty
(2011) 3 SCC 436, Basawaraj Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer
(2013) 14 SCC 81, Dalip Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2019) 11 SCC 422,
Union of India Vs. M.K. Sarkar (2010) 2 SCC 59, Vishal Properties (P)
Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2007) 11 SCC 172, State of Haryana Vs.
Ram Kumar Mann (1997) 3 SCC 321, Fuljit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab
(2010) 11 SCC 455, Union of India Vs. International Trading Co. (2003) 5
SCC 437 and Anand Buttons Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana (2005) 9 SCC 164.
6. The counsel for the respondent NrDMC states that in SDMC, the
batchmates of the petitioner have not been granted anything different from
what has been granted to the petitioner.
7. However we are not called upon to enter into the said controversy
since the petitioner, as per his own admissions, is not entitled to the relief
claimed.
8. There is no merit in the petition.
Dismissed.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
AMIT BANSAL, J
APRIL 6, 2021
Su..
W.P.(C) 1790/2020 page 3 of 3
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned
By:MEENAKSHI PANT
Signing Date:09.04.2021
15:01:58
