Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1177 (DEL)

ANIL KUMAR v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

2007-05-31

KAILASH GAMBHIR

body2007
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. ( 1 ) RULE. With the consent of counsel appearing for the parties the matter is taken up for final arguments. ( 2 ) BY way of this common order the writ petitions bearing no. 6029/2002 and 4051/2002 are being disposed of. By way of writ petition bearing WP (C) No. 6029/2002 the petitioners have challenged the validity of office order dated 21. 06. 2002 passed by respondent No. 2 whereby the respondents have cancelled the revision of pay scales of the petitioners from Rs. 3050-4590 to Rs. 4000-6000/- with retrospective effect and by way of writ petition bearing wp (C) No. 4051/2002 the petitioners have challenged the validity of office order dated 21. 06. 2002 and 06. 06. 2002 passed by respondent No. 2 whereby the respondents have cancelled the revision of pay scales of the petitioners from rs. 4000-6000/- to Rs. 5000-8000/- with retrospective effect. ( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case, inter alia, are that five petitioners in WP (C) No. 6029/2002 were holding the posts of Electricians and three petitioners in WP (C) No. 4051/2002 were holding the posts of Work Assistant (Civil) with respondent No. 2, ie. , Delhi Energy Development Agency, an autonomous body. This agency of the Government had declared the present petitioners as surplus on account of abandonment of its various activities and a decision was taken at the Government level to send these surplus employees of the DEDA to the service department of Government of NCT for their onward redeployment in various other Government departments under the control and power of Government of NCT of Delh. Vide order dated 06. 06. 2002 the Government of nct of Delhi had directed the redeployment of the petitioners and other surplus staff on various posts to the other Government departments on the pay scales as mentioned in the said order from the date of their being declared surplus in accordance with the provisions of the CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990. In the said order it is indicated that before the redeployment of the petitioners and other surplus staff the past services rendered by them prior to their redeployment shall not be counted towards seniority in the posts on which they were redeployed with various departments of Government of NCT of Delh. In the said order it is indicated that before the redeployment of the petitioners and other surplus staff the past services rendered by them prior to their redeployment shall not be counted towards seniority in the posts on which they were redeployed with various departments of Government of NCT of Delh. It was also indicated that as regards other service departments, these redeployed employees will be treated as appointed by transfer in the public interest. Prior to the said order dated 06. 06. 2002 directing redeployment of the petitioners and other surplus staff members with various other Government departments, Delhi Energy Development Agency vide order dated 26. 04. 2002 had revised the pay scales of these petitioners of W. P. (C) No. 6029/2002 from Rs. 3050-75-3950-80-4590 to Rs. 4000-100-6000 and of WP (C) No. 4051/2002 from Rs. 4000-100-6000 to Rs. 5000-150-8000 in accordance with the recommendation of 5th Pay Commission with retrospective effect,. e. , 01. 01. 1996. This revision of pay scales was withdrawn and cancelled by respondent No. 2 vide orders dated 21. 06. 2002 and the said orders of cancellation is under challenge in the present writ petitions. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties at length. Dr. Surat Singh, counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that by withdrawing or by cancelling the said revision in pay scales of the petitioners, the respondents have acted in a most discriminatory manner and in utter violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners. Counsel also contended that juniors in service to the petitioners in the seniority list were already getting the revised pay scales but as regards the petitioners the grant of revised pay scales has been withdrawn vide order dated 21. 06. 2002. Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to the office order dated 01. 12. 2000 passed by respondent No. 2,. e. , DEDA whereby the pay scales of three electricians were revised from 3050-75-3950-80-4590 to Rs. 4000-100-6000 w. e. f. 01. 01. 1996. The counsel has submitted that these three electricians, who are junior to the petitioners, joined later on and, thus, the decision of the revision of pay scales of the juniors and withdrawal of the revision of pay scales of the petitioners by the respondent is arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory in nature. 4000-100-6000 w. e. f. 01. 01. 1996. The counsel has submitted that these three electricians, who are junior to the petitioners, joined later on and, thus, the decision of the revision of pay scales of the juniors and withdrawal of the revision of pay scales of the petitioners by the respondent is arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory in nature. Counsel for the petitioners in WP (C) No. 6029/2002 has also placed reliance on the seniority list dated 22. 01. 1997 to show that the petitioners are senior to other electricians in respect of whom the revision of pay scales have been directed w. e. f. 01. 01. 1996 vide order dated 01. 12. 2000. ( 5 ) MR. V. K. Shali counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 took a stand that the order of revision of the pay scales issued by respondent No. 2/deda in the month of April, 2002, when the petitioners were yet to be directed for redeployment in various departments of the Government of NCT of Delhi and the redeployment order dated 06. 06. 2002 was issued by the services Department of Government of NCT of delhi by just protecting the pay scales of the petitioners without effecting any revision in the pay scales. The contention of counsel for respondent No. 2 is that the competent authority of the Government of NCT of Delhi took a decision to roll back the pay scales of the petitioners without effecting any kind of revision in pay scales and while doing this the pay of the petitioners was duly protected without causing any financial loss to them and, thus, as per counsel for the respondent the order passed by the respondent No. 2 withdrawing the revision in pay scales is neither illegal or arbitrary nor such order can be termed as discriminatory in nature. Without taking any plea in the counter affidavit the respondents also tried to justify the action of the respondent by saying that the order dated 21. 04. 2002 for grant of revision in pay scale, in fact, was passed by mistake and, therefore, the petitioners cannot take any undue advantage of the mistake committed by the said Agency of the Government. When asked to substantiate such a plea with the help of any assertion in the counter affidavit or by some document, the plea of the counsel for the respondents was that the redeployment order dated 06. When asked to substantiate such a plea with the help of any assertion in the counter affidavit or by some document, the plea of the counsel for the respondents was that the redeployment order dated 06. 06. 2002 itself postulates such a position otherwise the revised pay scales could have been protected in the redeployment order itself. ( 6 ) I do not find any logic or rational in such submissions made by counsel appearing for the respondents. Although the Government cannot claim an immunity from committing error and mistakes but if such mistake stands committed at any stage, then, the Government has to take a categorical stand explaining under what circumstances such mistake was committed and while withdrawing such mistake necessary background has to be spelt out. Once the Government has taken a decision to revise the pay scales of the petitioners that too in accordance with the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission, an expert body, the government cannot turn around to say that such decision was taken by mistake. ( 7 ) BY taking such a decision, the Government has granted financial advantage to the petitioners and if such an advantage is required to be withdrawn due to any policy decision of the Government then the petitioner who were the beneficiaries of the financial gain have at least to be informed as under what circumstances the same is being withdrawn, be it on account of change in the policy decision or be it on account of some earlier mistake or for any other just cause. The beneficiaries have a right to know about the reasons for withdrawal and cancellation of such benefits. In the impugned orders dated 21. 06. 2002 no such reasons have been given and it merely states that the earlier office orders dated 26. 04. 2002 whereby the pay scales of five electricians in WP (C) No. 6029/2002 and three Work Assistants (Civil) in WP (C) No. 4051/2002 were revised stood cancelled with retrospective effect w. e. f. 25. 04. 2002. Even the order dated 06. 06. 2002 is silent about the pay revision as in this order itself the government could have cancelled the earlier pay revision by spelling out some justified reasons for such withdrawal. 04. 2002. Even the order dated 06. 06. 2002 is silent about the pay revision as in this order itself the government could have cancelled the earlier pay revision by spelling out some justified reasons for such withdrawal. I also do not agree with the arguments of counsel appearing for the respondents that since the petitioners are redeployed on humanitarian grounds, therefore, they are not entitled for revision in the pay scales and it was enough that their pay scales was duly protected. ( 8 ) THE petitioners of W. P. (C) No. 4051/2002 have also challenged the decision of the respondent whereby the petitioners were re-deployed on a non- technical post of Grade-IV from the earlier position of Work Assistant (C) which was a technical post. Counsel for the petitioner contended that equivalent posts of Work Assistant were available to the respondent but still the petitioner was placed on a lower post in a most illegal and arbitrary manner. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the surplus staff of Delhi Energy Development Agency was re-deployed in any of the then available post on humanitarian grounds, and, therefore, the petitioners cannot claim their placement on the equivalent post on their being re-deployed in the available post. Counsel for the respondent also placed reliance on CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990 to contend that under the said rules, an employee can be re-deployed to a lower rung but the pay scale of such incumbent shall remain protected. ( 9 ) IN the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 1, the stand has been taken by the respondent that surplus employee would be re-deployed to a lower rung in the event of similar post not being available but the pay scale of such incumbents shall be protected. In the present case, the petitioners have not only been placed to the lower rung from the post of Work Assistant to the post of Grade-IV (DASS)/ldc at various posts in Government of NCT of Delhi but their pay scale have also been reduced from Rs. 4,000-6,000 to Rs. 3,050-4,590 as is borne out from the said order dated 06. 06. 2002. This act of the respondent in lowering down the scale of these petitioners from Rs. 4,000-6,000 to Rs. 4,000-6,000 to Rs. 3,050-4,590 as is borne out from the said order dated 06. 06. 2002. This act of the respondent in lowering down the scale of these petitioners from Rs. 4,000-6,000 to Rs. 3,050- 4,590 is apparently illegal and in violation of CCS (Redeployment of Surplus staff) Rules, 1990 and their own stand taken in their respective counter affidavits stating that no financial loss has been caused to these petitioners and their pay scales have been duly protected. The revised pay scale of rs. 4,000-6,000 granted in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 26. 04. 2002 was required to be protected by the respondents in terms of the said CCS Rules relied upon by the respondents, and, therefore, order dated 6. 6. 2002 whereby the pay scale of the petitioners has been reduced from Rs. 4,000-6,000 to Rs. 3,050- 4,590 is ex facie illegal. ( 10 ) BASED on the above discussion, both the writ petitions are allowed. The office order dated 21. 6. 2002 is hereby quashed in both the writ petitions. The respondents are directed to restore the pay scale of the petitioners as granted to them vide order dated 26. 4. 2002 and all arrears be paid to the petitioners after taking into consideration, the said revised pay scale. In W. P. (C) No. 4051/2002, the order dated 06. 06. 2002 is also quashed to the extent of lowering down the scale of the petitioners from Rs. 4,000-6,000 to rs. 3,050-4,590 and the respondents are directed to restore the revised pay scale of the petitioners as revised by order dated 26. 04. 2002. With these directions, the writ petitions are disposed of.