Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: January 10, 2013
RAJ KUMAR NIRALA ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate.
Represented by: Mr.Vaibhav Kalra, Advocate.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
JUDGMENT
1. An advertisement was issued by the second respondent, a hospital under the administrative control of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India inviting applications for the post of Workshop Technician in the pay-scale `4000 - 6000.
2. Educational qualification prescribed was an ITI Diploma.
3. The petitioner applied, and so did many others. Petitioner was lucky. He was selected and he joined.
4. Soon thereafter came the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission which recommended two scales of pay for the post of Workshop Technician. Those with higher qualification were recommended to be placed in the pay-scale of `5,000-8000 and retaining the pay-scale of `4000-6000 for others. Petitioner’s request to be placed in the higher pay-scale was declined on account of the reason that the post advertised envisaged lower minimum education qualification and 2013:DHC:167-DB notwithstanding he having a higher qualification would not be entitled to the higher pay-scale since the post in question was advertised in the lower pay-scale.
5. Even a visit before the Tribunal by the petitioner has been unsuccessful and the reasoning of the Tribunal in para 6 of the impugned decision reads as under:-
6. We entirely agree with the reasoning of the Tribunal inasmuch as when the post was advertised the differential pay-scales had already come into being in the form of the recommendations made by the Commission but not yet formally accepted by the Government. In anticipation of acceptance the post was advertised, not with reference to the pre-revised pay-scales but with respect to the proposed revised pay-scales. Needless to state, while advertising for the post the educational qualifications prescribed were for the lower pay-scale and merely because the petitioner has a higher educational qualification would not entitle him to the higher pay-scale.
7. Faced with aforesaid learned counsel for the petitioner, clutching on to straws, draws our attention to para 4.[1] of the Original Application wherein it is pleaded that respondent No.2 invited applications for Technicians in the pre-revised pay-scale `1230-2040 and would draw our attention to the reply filed to the OA where averments made in para 4.[1] of the OA have been admitted. Thus, the plea is that the selection was in the pre-revised pay-scale where a single scale existed and elaborating the argument it is urged that when the recommendations of the Central Pay Commission were accepted, creating two pay-scales, petitioner automatically become entitled to the higher pay-scale.
8. It is regretful that such an admission was made while responding to para 4.[1] of the reply. However, in para 3 of the preliminary objections it has been categorically pleaded as under:-
9. Annexed as Annexure R-1 is the advertisement which shows that the post was advertised in the pay-scale `4000-6000.
10. That is the end of the matter and we need not waste any further stationery.
11. The writ petition is dismissed but without any order as to costs. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (VEENA BIRBAL)
JUDGE JANUARY 10, 2012 dk