Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1552 (DEL)

Kumar Bajaj v. U. O. I.

2013-08-19

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, V.KAMESWAR RAO

body2013
JUDGMENT : V. Kameswar Rao, J. 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated October 17, 2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (the Tribunal) in Original Application No.2852/2001, whereby the Tribunal had dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioners herein. 2. The short question that arises for our consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Second Financial Up-gradation in the absence of their possessing the essential educational qualification for the next higher post of Milk Distribution Officer which is in the grade of Rs. 6500-10500. 3. The petitioners who are Cash Clerks/Assistant Cashiers contended that they are eligible for grant of financial Up-gradation in accordance with the scheme prescribed by the Government on August 09, 1999. There is no dispute that they have been granted the first financial Up-gradation after 12 years of service. 4. The issue only relates to the grant of second financial Up-gradation which under the said scheme was given after completion of 24 years of service. It is not in dispute that the same has been denied to the petitioners. According to them, some of them have put in 30 years of service. The respondent No.1 i.e. Delhi Milk Scheme has issued an order dated February 22, 2001, wherein it is inter-alia stipulated that the second ACP in the grade of Rs. 6500-10500 attached to the post of Milk Distribution Officer shall be granted subject to the condition that Cash Clerks who possesses the essential educational qualifications of degree from a recognized University as per the Recruitment Rules. 5. The petitioners objected to such a stipulation. They relied upon the condition No.1 laid down in the scheme dated August 09, 1999 which inter-alia provided placement in the higher pay scale only to the Government Servant concerned on personal basis and shall, therefore, neither amount to functional/regular promotion nor would require creation of new post for the purpose. 6. The Tribunal in the impugned order relied upon condition No.6 laid down in the Annexure I of the Scheme dated August 09, 1999 which inter-alia stipulated fulfilment of promotion norms like Bench Mark, Departmental Examination, Seniority cum Fitness in the case of Group ‘D’ employees etc. for grant of financial Up-gradation. 6. The Tribunal in the impugned order relied upon condition No.6 laid down in the Annexure I of the Scheme dated August 09, 1999 which inter-alia stipulated fulfilment of promotion norms like Bench Mark, Departmental Examination, Seniority cum Fitness in the case of Group ‘D’ employees etc. for grant of financial Up-gradation. The condition No.6 is reproduced hereunder: “Fulfilment of promotion norms (benchmark, departmental examination, seniority-cum-fitness in the case of Group ‘D’ employees, etc.) for grant of financial Up-gradations, performance of such duties as are entrusted to the employees together with retention of old designations, financial Up-gradations as personal to the incumbent for the stated purposes and restrictions of the ACP Scheme for financial and certain other benefits (House Building Advance, allotment of Government accommodation, advances etc.) only without conferring any privileges related to higher status (e.g., invitation to ceremonial functions, deputations to higher posts, etc.) shall be ensured for grant of benefits under the ACP Scheme.” 7. The Tribunal was of the view that since the degree from a recognized University is pre-requisite for promotion to the post of Milk Distribution Officer in the pay grade of Rs. 6500-10500 in accordance with the Recruitment Rules, the petitioners are not entitled to the financial Up-gradation. 8. We agree with the view taken by the Tribunal, more so when the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the educational qualification of degree from a recognized University is pre-requisite for promotion. That apart perusal of the writ petition shows that the petitioners are not denying the fact that a degree from a recognized University is pre-requisite for promotion. Their case in the writ petition is primarily is that persons junior to them with a degree qualification have been given the benefit of Second Financial Up-gradation. It is a circumstance which has arisen because of the peculiar condition laid down in the Recruitment Rules and the ACP Scheme, as framed by the Government of India. No benefit of Second Financial Up-gradation would accrue to the petitioners under the ACP scheme, in view of the fact that they do not possess requisite educational qualifications for promotion. 9. We do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly dismiss the same. 10. No costs.