Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1297 (GAU)

Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India

2012-11-27

S.R.SEN

body2012
JUDGMENT S.R. Sen, J. 1. Heard learned counsel Mr T.T. Diengdoh, for and on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. S.C. Shyam, learned CGC for the respondents. Petitioner story in short is that he joined Assam Rifles in the year 1981 as a Nursing Assistant in the rank of a Sepoy and subsequently on 19.08.1983 he was recruited as a Draughtsman through selection process and is still working in the same capacity. Since promotion and other financial benefits remained stagnant, petitioner approached this Court by way of a writ initially in the year 1995 as Civil Rule No. 12 of 1995 and the same Civil Rule was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 29.08.2002. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of Single Judge the petitioner approached the Division Bench of this Court by way of an appeal. The Hon'ble Division Bench vide order dated 25.11.2008 in WA No. 27(SH) 2002 was pleased to remand the matter to the Single Judge for a fresh proceeding taking into consideration the subsequent Office Memorandum dated 19.10.1994. Hence this instant writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. T.T. Diengdoh, submits that even if petitioner is not qualified as per the norms of CPWD Draughtsman he is entitled to get the revised Scale as per Office Memorandum dated 19.10.1994. He also further contends that one Mr. Alok Acharjee, having the same qualifications as petitioner is having also got the revised scale w.e.f 1.11.1983 and to support his contention learned counsel relied on the judgment given by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Debashis Kar & Ors. reported in 1995 Suppl (3) SCC 528. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Mr. S.C. Shyam, CGC, submits that petitioner was not found qualified as Draughtsman as per the norms and terms of CPWD, hence he could not be allowed to get the revised scale and that has been elaborately discussed by the Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 12 of 1995. Learned counsel for the respondents also further contends that even if he is found fit as per the Office Memorandum dated 19.10.94, it should not be given effect retrospectively as the petitioner approached the Court lately. 4. While going through the record it is admitted fact that no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondents as appeared from the order dated 23.4.2010. 4. While going through the record it is admitted fact that no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondents as appeared from the order dated 23.4.2010. 5. After hearing the submissions as advanced by learned counsels for the parties, I find the crux issue involved in the instant writ petition where the petitioner is entitled for the revised scale as per the Office Memorandum dated 19.08.1994. Before coming to any conclusion I feel it will be appropriate on my part to make a comparative study of Office Memorandum dated 13.03.1984 at page 26 of the writ petitioner was well as Office Memorandum dated 19.10.1994, reproduced at page 6 of the writ petition. Both the Office Memorandums are reproduced herein under:- New Delhi, the 13th March, 1984. OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Revision of pay scales of Draughts men Grade III, II and I in all Government of India offices on the basis of the Award of Board of Arbitration in the case of Central Public Works Department. The undersigned is directed to state that a committee of the National Council (Joint Consultative Machinery) was set up to consider the request of the staff side that the following revised scales of Pay allowed to the Draughtsmen Grade-I, II and III working in Central Public Works Department on the basis of the Award of Board of Arbitration may be extended to Draughtsmen Grade III, II and I in all Government of India Offices: 2. The President is now pleased to decide that the scales of pay of Draughtsmen Grade III, II and I in Offices/Department of the Government of India other than the Central Public Works Department, may be revised as above provided their recruitment, qualifications are similar to those prescribed in the case of Draughtsmen in Central Public Works Department. Those who do not fulfill the above recruitment qualification will continue in the pre-revised scales. The benefit of this revision of scales of pay would be given notionally with effect from 13.5.1982, the actual benefit being allowed with effect from 1.11,1983. 3. Hindi version will follow. Sd/- (R.C. PURI) Deputy Secy. to the Govt. of India To All Ministries. OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Revision of pay scales of Draughtsmen Grade I, II and III in all Government of India offices on the basis of the Award of the Board of Arbitration in the case of Central Public Works Department. 3. Hindi version will follow. Sd/- (R.C. PURI) Deputy Secy. to the Govt. of India To All Ministries. OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Revision of pay scales of Draughtsmen Grade I, II and III in all Government of India offices on the basis of the Award of the Board of Arbitration in the case of Central Public Works Department. The undersigned is directed to refer to this Departments OM No. F. 5(59)-E III/82 dated 13.3.1984 on the subject mentioned above and to say that a Committee of the National Council (JCM) was set up to consider the request of the staff side that the following scales of pay, allowed to the Draughtsmen Grade I, II and III working in CPWD on the basis of the Award of Board of Arbitration, may be extended to Draughtsmen Grade I, II and III irrespective of their recruitment qualification, in all Government of India offices: 2. The President of India is now pleased to decide that the Draughtsmen Grade 1, II and III in offices/departments of the Government of India other than in CPWD may also be placed in the scale of pay mentioned above subject to the following: a) Minimum period of service for placement from the post carrying scale of Rs. 975-1540 to Rs. 1200-2040 (pre-revised Rs. 260-430 to Rs. 330-560) -7 years b) Minimum period of service for placement from the post carrying scale of Rs. 1200-2040 to Rs. 1400-2300 (pre-revised Rs. 330-560 to Rs. 425-700) -5 years c) Minimum period of service for placement from the post carrying scale of Rs. 1400-2300 to Rs. 1600-2600 (pre-revised Rs. 425-700 to Rs. 550-750) -5 years 3. Once the Draughtsmen are placed in the regular scales, further promotions would be made against available vacancies in higher grade and in accordance with the normal eligibility criteria laid down in the recruitment rules. 4. The benefit of this revision of scales of pay would be given with effect from 13.5.1982 notionally and actually from 1.11.1983. Sd/- (Shyam Sunder) Under Secretary to the Government of India 6. Now after reading the Office Memorandum dated 13.03.1984, it appears that to get revised scale one requires to possess requisite qualification as possessed by a Draughtsman in the CPWD. Therefore, the Office Memorandum 1984, emphasized and placed a pre-condition i.e. requisite qualification as required by a Draughtsman in CPWD. Sd/- (Shyam Sunder) Under Secretary to the Government of India 6. Now after reading the Office Memorandum dated 13.03.1984, it appears that to get revised scale one requires to possess requisite qualification as possessed by a Draughtsman in the CPWD. Therefore, the Office Memorandum 1984, emphasized and placed a pre-condition i.e. requisite qualification as required by a Draughtsman in CPWD. On the other hand, Office Memorandum dated 19.10.1994 speaks irrespective of their recruitment qualification but pre-condition has been placed as 4, 5 and 7 years of service. So after comparative study of both the Memorandums it is apparent that Memorandum of 1983 has placed requisite qualification as required for CPWD as precondition whereas, Memorandum dated 19.10.94 has placed the years of service as 4, 5 and 7 years as pre-condition. 7. Even if petitioner does not possess requisite qualification as per Office Memorandum dated 13.03.1984 but he possessed requisite qualification/experience/length of service as prescribed by Office Memorandum dated 19.10.1994, because it is undisputed fact that petitioner is serving as Grade III Draughtsman w.e.f. 19.08.1983 and he has completed 4 years of service in the year 1997, as such, in my prima- facie view, petitioner is entitled to get the revised scale with effect from the date on which he has completed the 4 years of service in the same post as mentioned in the Office Memorandum dated 19.10.94. 8. I also could not agree with the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has approached this Court lately. From record it appears that he has approached the Court in the year 1995 and since then the matter is pending before the Court. Therefore, the respondents are directed to give the revised scale to Petitioner w.e.f. 19.9.1987. It is further directed to the respondents to consider the promotion of the petitioner as and when the vacancy arises. With this observation and direction the instant writ petition is allowed and disposed of. Petition allowed