Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1998 (DEL)

UMESH CHANDRA v. UNION OF INDIA

2006-11-02

MANMOHAN SARIN, VIPIN SANGHI

body2006
JUDGMENT Manmohan Sarin, J.-With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing. 2. Petitioner Umesh Chandra, by this writ petition, seeks quashing of the order dated 19th March, 2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, dismissing OA No. 878/1998. Petitioner in the OA had prayed for re-fixation of his pay in the scale of Rs. 330-480 which was revised to Rs. 1200-1800 w.e.f. September, 1989, i.e., the date of promotion oft he petition to the post of Electrician (MV). The Tribunal by the impugned order had dismissed the said OA. 3. The facts in brief may be noted before dealing with the contentions sought to be raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 4. Petitioner had been recruited as a labourer on the Electrical Side in 1983 with the Army Headquarters Static Workshop EME, Delhi Cantt. In 1986, he got promoted to the next higher post of Electrician Mate with a pay scale of Rs. 210290. It was in 1989 that he got the next promotion to the post of Electrician (MV). 5. Petitioners grievance is that those electricians, who were promoted as Electrician (MV) after 1983, were given the pay scale of Rs. 330-480 (revised Rs. 1200-1800) while the petitioner was given the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 (revised Rs. 950-1500) though he had the same qualification as those promoted earlier. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Bakshi places reliance on a letter dated 11th May, 1983 (page 25 of the paper book). He seeks to draw support from para 3 of the said letter, which is reproduced for facility of reference: 3. In certain cases, where the fitments result in downgradation of jobs, incumbents thereof should be allowed to draw pay in their present scales of pay till they are wasted out or promoted to the next higher post. Future entrants/promotees to these jobs should, however, be given the revised scale(s) given in Annexure 1." 7. Learned Counsel contends that petitioner is a future entrant and promotee and was. therefore, eligible to be given the revised pay scale. He also places reliance on Annexure 1 to the letter dated 11.5.1983 wherein the revised pay scale of Electrician (MV) is given as Rs. 330-480, which stood revised to Rs. 1200-1800 while there was no revision in the scale of an Electrician Mate. 8. Mr. therefore, eligible to be given the revised pay scale. He also places reliance on Annexure 1 to the letter dated 11.5.1983 wherein the revised pay scale of Electrician (MV) is given as Rs. 330-480, which stood revised to Rs. 1200-1800 while there was no revision in the scale of an Electrician Mate. 8. Mr. Bakshi, relying on para 12 of the writ petition, states that certain other persons. who were working as Electrician Mate and were promoted as Electrician (MV), were given the revised pay scale of Rs. 330-480 and gives the examples of personnel posted in Lucknow. Kakinada, Danapur Cantt. and AHQ Static Workshop, EME, Delhi. 9. Respondents in the counter affidavit, in response, have clarified that the petitioners case is not advanced by the examples, which have been cited as these are belonging to different units outside Delhi, which have their own seniority and vacancy position. As regards example of Rajendra Singh, who is posted at Station Workshop, EME, Delhi Cantt., it has been explained that Shri Rajendra Singh was enrolled directly as the Electrician (MV) and was not promoted from labourer to Mate and then Electrician (MV). Besides, he happens to be senior to the petitioner and, as such, no grievance on this count would be made. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also laid emphasis on the fact that the letter dated 11.5.1983 referred to future entrants. This ignores the fact that the letter dated 11.5.1983 stood superseded by another Government of India letter dated 15.10.1984 as averred by the respondents. As a result of the re-structuring done vide letter dated 15.10.1984, new grades were introduced and a benchmark percentage of ratio between the grades were also fixed. These were as under: Highly Skilled Grade I Rs. 380-560 15% Highly Skilled Grade II Rs. 330-48020% Skilled GradeRs. 260-40065% 11. Petitioner, in terms of letter dated 15.10.1984 and the Recruitment Rules of 1988, had been promoted from Electrician Mate to Electrician (MV) on 9.9.1989 and the above re-structuring would be applicable in his case also. Respondents have clarified that in the electrical and engineering corps in the Indian Army, the civil employees are recruited area-wise, and accordingly, the seniority is maintained as per their respective areas. 12. Respondents have clarified that in the electrical and engineering corps in the Indian Army, the civil employees are recruited area-wise, and accordingly, the seniority is maintained as per their respective areas. 12. It is not disputed before us that as far as the Delhi Unit is concerned, no person, who is junior to the petitioner, has been given the higher grade scale i.e. of H.S. Grade II or H.S. Grade I as claimed by the petitioner. It is only personnel, who are senior like Rajendra Singh, who were directly appointed, who have got the higher grade scale. The Tribunal has duly noted in its order that as per the percentage available following the re-structuring, one post was available in electrician HS Grade I, one post in electrician HS Grade II and four posts in Electrician Skilled Grade. As persons senior to applicant were already occupying the posts of Electrician HS Grade I, and Electrician HS Grade II, petitioner could, thus, be treated only as Electrician Skilled Grade in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 260400 and revised scale of Rs. 950-1500. 13. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nirmal Chandra Bhattacharjee and Others v. Union of India and Other. 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 363, wherein the Supreme Court in paragraph 5 observed that any rule cannot work to the prejudice of an employee who was in service prior to the date of the rule being brought into force. Relying on this principle, learned Counsel contended that the petitioners right to get the revised scale of Rs. 330-480 upon his promotion as Electrician (MV), which accrued to him upon the issuance of the communication dated 11.5.1983 could not be taken away by the subsequent issuance of the communication dated 15.10.1984. He submits that by placing him as Skilled Grade (Rs. 260-400), the pay scale of an Electrician (MV) has in fact been denied to him which was fixed at Rs. 330-480. 14. In our view, this argument is devoid of merit. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Electrician (MV) in 1989, whereas the amendment/restructuring took place in 1983 and 1984. The petitioner was not occupying the position of Electrician (MV) in 1984. He did not get vested with any rights in respect of the post of Electrician (MV) in the year 1984. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Electrician (MV) in 1989, whereas the amendment/restructuring took place in 1983 and 1984. The petitioner was not occupying the position of Electrician (MV) in 1984. He did not get vested with any rights in respect of the post of Electrician (MV) in the year 1984. It was open to the respondents to change/restructure the pay scales in respect of the posts and the petitioner cannot claim a right to be governed by the unamended structure of posts. 15. In these circumstances, the petitioner has not suffered any discrimination and would be eligible for the grade claimed by him as and when the vacancy is available and according to his seniority. Petition has no merit and is dismissed. CM No. 1729/2003 In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, this application has become infructuous. Dismissed accordingly. Petition dismissed.