Full Text
W.P.(C) 2178/2012
RAMESH KUMAR & ORS Petitioners Represented by; Mr.Piyush Sharma, Advocate with Mr.A.S.N.Murti, Advocate.
MAHENDER SINGH AND ORS Petitioners Represented by; Mr.Piyush Sharma, Advocate with Mr.A.S.N.Murti, Advocate.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
07.01.2013 CMNo.6466/2012 in WP(CB004/2012 Allowed; subject to just exceptions.
W.P.rCl 2178/2012 & W.P.fC) 3004/2012
ORDER
1. The issue pertaining to second financial upgradation under the Annual Career Progression scheme pertaining to persons holding the post of Assistant Malaria Inspector is no longer res-integra inasmuch as it stands covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated May 5, 2010 W.P.(C) 2178/2012 Page 1 of[3] 2013:DHC:7021-DB disposing of W.P.(C) 1223/2010 Krishna Pal Sinsh & Ors. v. M. C.D. & Ors.
2. The decision holds that such Seasonal Malaria Beldars who were promoted as Assistant Malaria Inspectors cannot claim parity with those who were directly appointed as Assistant Malaria Inspectors. Needless to state the scheme in question requires a financial upgradation in the next scale of pay applicable to those who do not earn promotion firstly after 12 years and thereafter, after another 12 years.
3. In other words direct recruit Assistant Malaria Inspectors who do not earn promotions for 24 years would be entitled to a first financial upgradation after 12 years and thereafter to another financial upgradation after 24 years of initial joining service. Those who reach said post after promotion would not be entitled to a similar benefit. Their entitlement under the ACP scheme would have to factor the fact ofpromotion.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that in the group action initiated individual letters of appointment have not been pleaded nor filed and thus there is no material available with this Court to segregate as to which writ petition was promoted to the post of Assistant Malaria Inspector and which writ petitioner was a directrecruit to the said post.
5. Faced with the aforesaid learned counsel for the petitioners fairly concedes, on instructions from the petitioners, that liberty be granted to the petitioners to not only withdraw the instant writ petitions but even the Original Applications which have been dismissed by the Tribunal inasmuch as the writ petitioners approached the Tribunal without identification as aforesaid.
6. Since the matter relates to the wages of persons holding Group-C posts and learned counsel concerned that who drafted the Original Applications and writ petitions did not consider properly the law declared by this Court in Krishna Pal Sinsh (supra), we permit the writ petitioners to W.P.(C) 2178/2012 Page 2 of[3] 3; •y r f by this Court in KrishnaPal Sinsh (supra), we permitthe writpetitioners to withdraw the instantwrit petitions as also the Original Applications filed by them and give them a right to revisit the Tribunal by making proper pleadings and annexing the applicable documents keeping in view the law declared bythe Division Bench ofthis courtin KrishnaPal Sinsh's case.
7. The writ petitions and O.A.No.1997/2010 and O.A.No.2117/2010 are dismissed as withdrawn.
8. No costs. CM No.5875/2012 in WPfQ2178/2012 Dismissed as infructuous; CMNo.4702/2012 in WPfC)2178/2012 CMNo.6465/2012 in WP(CB004/2012 Since the writ petitions have been disposed of as dismissed as withdrawn the instant applications seeking stay of the impugned orders till the disposal ofthe petitions are disposed of as infhictuous.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. VEENA BIRBAL, J JANUARY 07, 2013 Skb