Ajmer Singh v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

1. The petitioner is seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents/contemnors under Article 215 of the Constitution of India for wilful disobedience and non-compliance of the order dated 31.07.2018 passed by this Court in Rev. Pet. 8/2018 in Writ Petition No. 7517/2015.

2. Having heard the petitioner, who argues his case in person, as well as learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3, I find that the present contempt petition does not survive any longer, as the directions of this Court have been duly complied with.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner was initially appointed as Ground „D‟ employee in Khalsa Girls Senior Secondary School, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi on 19.06.1978, which was a government aided school and he was promoted as „Laboratory Assistant‟ w.e.f. 08.12.1981, in the Pay Scale of Rs. 290-500, as per the recommendations of the 3rd Pay Commission. He was also given the selection grade in the scale of Rs.530-610, w.e.f. August 01, 1992, which was later revised as Rs. 1350-2200 and as Rs. 4500-7000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 as per 5th Pay Commission.

4. It appears that the dispute arose after the Government of India introduced the ACP[1], which was made applicable to Group „B, „C‟ and „D‟ employees, prompting the petitioner to file Writ Petition NO. 3408/2011. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 09.07.2013, with the directions to the Directorate of Education to hear the petitioner and subsequently pass a speaking order, which was eventually passed on 02.12.2013, remanding the matter to the Deputy Director of Education to examine all relevant issues. The said writ petition was disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition vide order dated 10.04.2015.

5. Long story short, W.P. (C) 7517/2015 was filed claiming that since the petitioner was appointed in Group „D‟, he had become entitled to 1st and 2nd ACP and he has not been granted financial benefits in accordance with 3rd MACP w.e.f. 01.09.2008 and instead wrongful recovery had been effected from him. It is admitted fact that the petitioner, who had by then compulsorily retired, was made entitled to the following reliefs vide order dated 27.09.2017:

1 Assumed Career Probation recovery is impermissible in terms of Para 18(3). It is held the recovery of an amount of Rs. l,50,000/- approx, is illegal.

16. Insofar as the judgment of this court in the case of General Manager and Qrs v. Prem Pal Singh and Anr (supra) on which reliance was placed by Ms. Divan is concerned, the same would not be applicable in view of my conclusion above, that grant of Selection Grade shall not be treated as a grant of Second financial upgradation to deny the benefit of 7nd ACP in terms of clarification dated February 10, 2000 of the DoP&T.

17. In view of my discussion above, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of Senior Scale and 2nd ACP as prayed for in the petition. As the petitioner has not been given the benefits arising from the third MACP, the amount of Rs.l,50,000/- recovered shall be shall be adjusted against the benefits to be given under the third MACP. The respondents are further restrained from recovering/adjusting an amount of Rs.2,34,876/. Any differential amount to be paid under 3rd ACP shall be released to the petitioner within two months, with interest @ 9% per annum. Petition is disposed of. No costs.”

6. A review petition was filed bearing CM APPL. 42563/2017, which led to the passing of following order:

7. The petitioner instituted the present contempt petition with the making a grievance that computation of financial benefits in terms of the aforesaid judgment have not been carried out and that unwarranted and illegal deductions have been made. This Court vide order dated 19.04.2023, initially sought to facilitate a reconciliation between the petitioner and Accounts Officer, Zone-28, in an attempt to align the payments made with the Court‟s directions.

8. Long story short, several meetings were held but the petitioner remains unsatisfied. The petitioner has brought forth his own calculation sheet, claiming not only the amount which was wrongfully deducted but also interest. He seeks a total payment of ₹ 16,28,155.27/- as compensation for the wrongful deduction from his salary, along with ₹32,50,865/- towards interest and service dues.

9. Unhesitatingly, the calculation sheet placed by the petitioner cannot be accepted on its face value. There is no provision for charging interest against wrongful deduction.

10. Infact, Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the respondents, has alluded to the re-call application supported by an affidavit from the Deputy Director of Education, Zone-28, which suggests that the respondents, in compliance with the order dated 31.08.2018, have made the following payments to the petitioner: “That it is most respectfully submitted that the Applicant/Respondent has, in no manner, defied or disobeyed any direction issued by this Hon‟ble Court. It is further submitted that the Petitioner by way of W.P.(C) 7517/2015 titled as “Ajmer Singh Vs.