Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 11.12.2014
JAWAHAR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Govind Narayan and Mr. Raneev Dahiya, Advocates
Through: Mr. Vikas Mahajan, Standing Counsel for UOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT)
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the CAT dated 31st July, 2012 in OA No. 2473/2012. The CAT declined his application for a direction to the respondent to appoint him as an Inspector of Post.
2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner had applied and participated in the process for recruitment to the grade of Post Master-I in June, 2012. At that time, he was also eligible to apply for the grade of Inspector of Posts. Concededly, there is a difference of status in two posts, and the latter concededly carries pay scale and grade pay which is higher to that of Post Master-I. 2014:DHC:6975-DB
3. At the time he applied for the second post i.e. Inspector of Posts, he was eligible to do so. The Department of Posts declared the result in respect of the former post i.e. Post Master-I earlier and consequently, the petitioner joined the training. Since he succeeded in the selection process for the post of Inspector of Posts, the petitioner requested that his case be considered for appointment to the said post. The Department of Posts, however, declined his request to be appointed as Inspector of Posts. He, therefore, approached the Tribunal. The respondent/UOI was able to successfully contend that, though, at the time of applying for the post of Inspector in September, 2012, the petitioner was eligible, but the factum that he underwent training for the post of Post Master-I disqualified him to the appointment under the grade of Inspector of Posts.
4. The petitioner, at the outset, urges that the very same issue raised in these proceedings was the subject matter of the previous decision of this Court in Union of India vs. Virender Kumar Dahiya in Writ Petition (C) No. 4833/2014 decided on 28th August, 2014 where, under identical circumstances, the CAT had allowed the application of a similarly circumstanced applicant and the challenge of Union of India against that order was declined.
5. Counsel for the respondents, however, contends that as a matter of details, there is factual difference in the cases, in that, the petitioner herein had accepted the promotion and underwent training for the entire period. According to counsel, this is sufficient distinction which the Court should take cognizance of, and decline relief by upholding the order of the CAT.
6. This Court had in Virender Kumar Dahiya (supra) stated as follows:-
7. The facts of the present case are closely parallel to that of Virender Kumar Dahiya (supra). So far as the distinction sought to be made by the respondent – that the petitioner underwent the training, is concerned, the Court is of the view that these details cannot make any radical difference. If the period of training i.e. four weeks is taken into account, the distinction is really insignificant. The Petitioner wan not put to notice that if he accepts appointment as Post Master I, he would stand disqualified from being appointed as Inspector of Posts, even though, he was eligible to apply for the said post when he did.
8. Considering all the circumstances, for the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed, following the decision in Virender Kumar Dahiya (supra); the petitioner shall be declared to be appointed as Inspector of Posts according to merit in the selection process which he successfully cleared, and with effect from the date on which others were appointed. However, only notional benefit of pay fixation and all other consequential benefits shall be given but not the arrears of salary. The consequential orders shall be issued by the respondents within a period of six weeks from today.
9. The petition is allowed in the above terms.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
VIPIN SANGHI (JUDGE) DECEMBER 11, 2014