Delhi High Court
Amit Kataria & Ors vs Office Of The District And ... on 25 August, 2022
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 25.08.2022
+ W.P.(C) 11518/2019
AMIT KATARIA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Tanmay Mehta, Mr.Vasu Vats &
Ms.Riya Rathi, Advs.
versus
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (HQ) &
ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, SC, GNCTD
with Mr.N.K.Singh & Ms.Palak Rohmetra, Advs.
Mr.Rajat Aneja & Ms.Aditi Shastri, Advs. for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)
1. The petitioners, who are working in this Court as Judicial Assistant,
have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
"a. Quash and set aside the orders part of Annexure P-1
(Colly) passed by the .Office of the District & Sessions
Judge (HQs): Delhi by which inter alia, the Petitioners
representations (Part of Annexure P-4 (Colly,)), seeking
upgradation to the post of Upper Division Clerk/ Judicial
Assistant w.e.f. completion of 5 years service from date of
joining, was rejected;
b. Quashing and set aside the minutes of meetings dated
06.06.2019 and 19.08.2017 of the Selection Committee on
the basis of which the Petitioners representations were
rejected;
c. Direct the Office of the District & Sessions Judge
(HQs): Delhi and the Selection committee to grant the
Petitioners their due upgradation as UDCs and further
direct the Respondents to grant all consequential benefits
Signature Not Verified
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:26.08.2022
13:23:49
including all monetary benefits to the Petitioners, w.e.f.
completion of 5 years from date of joining as LDC with
the district courts, including such further monetary
benefits for which a decision may have been taken after
their respective dates of completion of 5 years service but
where such decision was made applicable for the period
between date of completion of 5 years service up to the
date of relieving from service of district courts;
d. Direct ,the Respondents to ensure that the monetary
benefits due and payable to the Petitioners are in no
manner lesser than the monetary benefits which were
granted to persons who were junior to the Petitioners as
per seniority;"
2. The petitioners, who had initially joined the Delhi District Courts as
Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on different dates in 2003, as noted
hereinbelow in detail, had while working on the said post joined this Court
as Junior Judicial Assistant (JJA) pursuant to an independent selection
process.
S. Petitioner's Date of Date of Date on which 5
No. name with joining in joining in years of
father's Tis Hazari Hon'ble service as LDC
name District High Court completed
Courts of Delhi
1. Amit Kataria 05.06.2003 11.09.2009 04.06.2008
S/o Sh.Ajit
Singh
Kataria
2 Rahul 23.04.2003 05.09.2009 22.04.2008
Bhatarah (ad-hoc)
S/o Sh. M.K. 27.08.2003
Bhatarah
3. Javed 10.12.2003 05.09.2009 09.12.2008
Akhtar S/o
Signature Not Verified
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:26.08.2022
13:23:49
Saleem
Ahmed
4. Ajay Verma 30.06.2003 05.11.2008 29.06.2008
s/o
Sh.R.P.Ver
ma
5. Ashwani 01.11.2003 07.11.2008 31.10.2008
Maithani S/o
Late
Sh.C.P.Mait
hani
6. Giriraj Singh 18.07.2003 25.07.2008 17.07.2008
S/o
Sh.Prahlad
Singh
7. Ruchika 18.12.2003 04.09.2009 17.12.2008
Bisht D/o
Sh.G.S.Bisht
8. Ghanshyam 10.07.2003 01.11.2008 09.07.2008
Prashad S/o
Sh.Gauri
Shankar
9. Gulshan 19.06.2003 03.09.2009 18.06.2008
Nagpal S/o
Late Sh.
P.D.Nagpal
3. The grievance of the petitioners is that after they had joined this Court
as JJA, the respondent no.1 pursuant to a decision dated 22.03.2010 of this
Court in W.P.(C) 5686/1998 took a decision for upgradation of the post of
LDC to the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in terms of the OM dated
01.10.1979 and 20.03.1994. As per the decision taken on 17.04.2017, after
1996, the upgradation was to be done five years of service as LDC. Learned
Signature Not Verified
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:26.08.2022
13:23:49
counsel for the petitioner submits that this decision was duly implemented
for all serving employees of the respondent no.1 who were also granted all
consequential benefits irrespective of the post they were working on at the
time of the decision of upgradation. However, vide the impugned
communication dated 01.08.2019, the benefit of this upgradation has been
arbitrarily denied to the petitioners on the premise that they were no longer
employees of respondent no.1 and their lien which was only for a period of
two years stood terminated in 2010-2011 itself. He submits that once it is an
admitted position that upgradation has been made effective on the date when
the petitioners were in service of respondent no.1 as LDC , they cannot be
deprived of this benefit for the period during which they remained in service
of respondent no.1. He, therefore, prays that the respondent be directed to
grant the benefits of the pay scale of UDC to all the petitioners w.e.f. the
date on which they completed five years service as LDC.
4. The petition is sought to be opposed by Ms.Ahlawat, learned counsel
for the respondent no.1, who contends that once the lien of the petitioners
stood terminated, they cannot seek benefits of any upgradation of post or
pay scale. She submits that when it is not denied that the decision to
implement the upgradation has been taken only recently and in any event
much after the petitioners had left the service of respondent no.1, they
cannot now be granted any benefits as they are no longer employees of
respondent no.1.
5. On the other hand, Mr.Aneja, learned counsel for the respondent no.2,
submits that this claim of the petitioners pertains to a period when they were
not in the service of the respondent no.2 but were in the service of
respondent no.1 and therefore, the respondent no.2 has no role to play qua
Signature Not Verified
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:26.08.2022
13:23:49
this relief. He, however, submits that even if the petitioners are held entitled
to receive the benefits of the upgraded post of UDC from the respondent
no.1 for the period during which they were in service with said respondent,
the same would not entitle them to claim a higher scale from the respondent
no.2, where they had joined as JJA.
6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the plea of respondent
no.1 that since the petitioners were no longer in service of the said
respondent when the decision for upgradation was taken, needs to be noted
only to be rejected. It is settled law that an employee, merely because he is
no longer in service, cannot be deprived of the benefits like upgradation of
pay scale which are made effective from the date he/she was in service.
Once it is an admitted position that the decision to upgrade the post of LDC
to UDC after 5 years, as decided on 17.04.2017 has been made effective
w.e.f. 01.10.1979, the respondent no.2 could not have denied benefits of the
said upgradation to the petitioners for the period during which they were in
service. The respondent no.1, having extended the said benefit to all
similarly placed employee who are in service, cannot be permitted to
discriminate against the petitioners, who had all completed five years of
service as LDC before they left the service of respondent no.1 to join
respondent no.2.
7. Insofar as the submission of Mr.Aneja that this upgradation of the
petitioners' pay scale from a retrospective date will not automatically entitle
them to claim any higher scale from the respondent no.2, is concerned, since
the petitioners have not made any specific prayer in this regard, I do not
deem it necessary to deal with this aspect. It is, therefore, made clear that
Signature Not Verified
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:26.08.2022
13:23:49
this Court has not expressed any opinion on the said aspect and in case, the
petitioners raise any claim in this regard, it will be open for them to seek
legal recourse as permissible in law.
8. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed by directing that since the
petitioners completed five years of service as LDC in respondent no.1, they
would be entitled to receive all consequential benefits of the upgradation
from the date of completion of five years of service as LDC in respondent
no.1. The arrears in favour of the petitioner will be paid within a period of
eight weeks.
(REKHA PALLI)
JUDGE
AUGUST 25, 2022/kk
Signature Not Verified
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:26.08.2022
13:23:49
