Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 04.12.2025
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH & TRAINING .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar and Ms. Chhavi Arora, Advs.
Through: Mr. Saurabh Dev Karan Singh, Mr. Darshan Sejwal, Mr. Sanjay Shisodia and Mr. Dipesh Yadav, Advs.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated 11.07.2008 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 372/2008, titled Puran Kumar Khiani v. National Council of Educational Research and Training and Anr., whereby the learned Tribunal disposed of the said O.A. filed by the respondent herein with the following directions:
applicant for grant of first and second ACP in the light of what has been granted to Junior Foremen in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 as first financial upgradation and in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 as second financial upgradation by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that on being entitled the consequences from the date as per the ACP Scheme, with arrears shall ensue upon applicant. No costs.”
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in compliance with the above directions, the petitioner has passed a detailed order dated 26.05.2025, rejecting the claim of the respondent. He has taken us through the said order, which records that the respondent joined the post of technician under Special Project Establishment Service with effect from 01.04.1972 to 23.04.1979 in the pay-scale of ₹150-5-175-6-205-EB-7-240. Thereafter, he was offered a regular post of Lab Assistant, which he joined with effect from 24.04.1974, in the pay-scale of ₹380-12-500 EB-15-560 (Grade Pay 2400). As there was no scope of promotion from the post of Lab Assistant to the higher post of Jr. Foremen/ Jr. Mechanical Assistants, due to lack of vacancies, it could have resulted in the stagnation of the respondent, therefore, the petitioner decided to re-designate four posts that is, three posts of Fine Mechanic and one post of Lab Assistant, to the post of Technicians in the pay-scale of ₹425-15-500-15-560-20- 700, from 15.07.1982, vide order no. 3-1/ 75- E-III dated 31.07.1982. The respondent was accordingly, placed in a pay-scale which was upto Rs. 700, while in his previous pay-scale he would have stagnated at Rs. 560.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this upgradation of the pay-scale of the respondent amounted to a promotion and therefore, he was rightly considered only for the second ACP benefit. Accordingly, upon the ACP Scheme coming into force, with effect from 12.10.2000, the petitioner claims that the second ACP benefit was granted to the respondent in the pay-scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- (pre-revised) after completion of 24 years of service from the date of his regular appointment/regularisation to the post of Fine Mechanics/Lab Assistant with effect from 12.10.2000, and the pay was fixed under FR-22(I)(a)(1). The petitioner claims that the respondent could not be granted the third MACP benefit as he had superannuated from the service in August, 2006.
4. The same is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent, who submits that the upgradation of the pay-scale of the respondent was only to remove an anomaly found by the competent authority of the petitioner, and cannot be construed as a promotion.
5. He has drawn our attention to the minutes of the Council’s Internal Anomaly Committee, which records that the respondent was appointed as a Fine Mechanic (Technicians) in the pay-scale of Rs. 380-560/-, however, in view of his higher qualifications, the supervisory nature of job performed by him, and the fact that for similar job and educational qualifications in other organisations, officers are being paid the higher pay-scale of Rs. 425-700/-, three diploma holders were proposed to be placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 425-700/-, the same as for Junior Foremen, and be re-designated as Junior Foremen from the date of the issue of the order.
6. Based on this recommendation, by an order dated 31.07.1982, the petitioner accorded sanction to the re-designation and revision of pay-scale of pay attached to post of three Fine Mechanics (Technicians) and one post of Lab Assistant in the pay-scale of Rs. 380-500/- in the Workshop Department into that of Technicians in the pay-scale of Rs. 425-700/-, with effect from 15.07.1982, which included the respondent herein.
7. He submits that therefore this was a case of re-designation on finding of an anomaly in the pay-scale of the respondent, and cannot be treated as a promotion.
8. He further submits that the order dated 26.05.2025 passed by the petitioner is not in compliance with the direction of the learned Tribunal in the Impugned Order, inasmuch as the learned Tribunal in the Impugned Order has also found that the re-designation of the respondent and the increase in his pay-scale was not to be treated as a promotion.
9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
10. The Anomaly Committee Report which has been relied upon by the respondent reads as under: “There are 3 Fine Mechanics (Technicians) in the Workshop Department in the pay scale of Rs.380-560. They are possessing higher qualifications (viz. diploma in engineering) that the ordinary Fine Mechanics who are also in the pay scale of Rs.380-560. The background about these 3 persons is that a few years back they were initially employed as Technicians on daily wage basis @ Rs.10/- per day when the skilled and highly skilled persons were paid @Rs.7/- and Rs.8.80 per day respectively. In 1972 all the persons in the Council who were working on daily wage rates were given regular pay scales and they were placed under the Special Project Establishment. There 3 persons were accordingly placed in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 150-240 since revised to Rs.380-560. Subsequently these persons were appointed on regular basis through a Selection Committee as Fine Mechanics in the same pay scale viz. Rs.380-560, but they were allowed to use the designation Fine Mechanics (Technician) in view of their higher qualifications and nature of their job which was supervisory. Ever since then these diploma holders have been representing for the revision of their pay scale and re-designation of their posts in consonance with their qualifications viz. diploma in engineering. In this connection it may be stated that some Central Government organizations such as National Small Industries Corporation, NPCC, NBCC, DESU, CPWD etc. have allowed higher scale of pay where the minimum prescribed qualification is a 3 year diploma in engineering. It may be added that fresh diploma holders are appointed as Junior Engineer in the pay scale of Rs.425-700 in the CPWD. It may be further pointed to that recently some posts of Engineering Assistant
(II) have been created in the pay scale of
Rs.550-900 for which only a diploma in one of the engineering subjects has been prescribed without any experiences as essential qualification. The posts of Technician Grade I in C.E.T. carry the pay scale of Rs.425-700 for which the qualifications are (i) a National Trade Certificate, in "Electrician"/Radio & TV issued by the National Council Training in Vocational Traders …(illegible)… a two year study in an Industrial Training Institute of similar institution of the Central and or State Government and (ii) Minimum one year's working experience, after obtaining the National Organization engaged in the production and/or recording of vide and sound programmes. It will thus be seen that the three persons in question have not only a 3-year diploma in engineering but have also put in about 10 years experience in the Workshop Department. Therefore, their demand for a higher scale seems to be fully justified. Our internal Anomaly Committee has also examined this matter and recommends higher scale (viz. Rs.425-700) for them. This is all in line with the recommendation of the 3rd pay Commission which says that the entry grade of posts requiring three year diploma course in engineering be Rs.210-425 revised Rs.425-
700. In the circumstances explained above it is proposed that these. diploma holders with extensive experience in the Workshop Department of the Council may be placed in the pay scale of Rs.425- 700, the same as for Junior Foreman and they be also designated as Junior Foreman from the date of issue of the order. They will, however, rank junior to the existing Junior Foreman. Approval of the establishment committee is solicited to the proposal.”
11. A reading of the above would show that the Anomaly Committee found that, for the experience, the educational qualification, and the job performed by the respondent, he was entitled to a higher pay-scale. This was done by re-designating his post, as would be evident from the order dated 31.07.1982 passed by the petitioner. The said order is reproduced as under: ”Sanction of the Council is hereby accorded to the re-designation and revision of scale of pay attached to the posts of three Fine Mechanics (Technicians) and one post of Lab. Assistant in the scale of pay of Rs.380-500 in the Workshop Department held by the following who are all Engineering Diploma holders into that of Technicians in the scale of Rs.425-700 with effect from 15th July, 1982.
1. Shri S.S.Wadhwa Fine Mechanic
2. Shri G.B. Sharma ”
3. Shri D.S.Mathur ” (at present on leave abroad)
4. Shri Puran Kumar Khiani Lab. Assistant The Scale of pay of Rs.425-700 will be personal to these employees. Sanction of the Council is also accorded to the creation of four posts of Technicians in the scale of pay of Rs.425-700 in lieu of the posts held by above mentioned employees which would be held in abeyance.”
12. The above clearly shows that the upgradation being granted to the respondent was not a case of a promotion, but an anomaly rectified by way of placing the respondent in the deserving pay-scale, depending on his experience/educational qualification and the job performed by him.
13. The learned Tribunal in its Impugned Order also held that this upgradation cannot be treated as a promotion. We reproduce the findings of the learned Tribunal as under:
9000 as first financial upgradation and Rs.8000- 3500 as second financial upgradation. Nonconsideration of this aspect of the matter shows non-application of mind by the respondents.”
14. We see no reason to differ from the above finding of the learned Tribunal. The order dated 26.05.2025 passed by the petitioner was not in conformity with the Impugned Order of the learned Tribunal.
15. In view of the above, we find no merit in the present petition and uphold the Order passed by the learned Tribunal.
16. We further direct that the petitioner shall re-work the pay of the respondent, not treating his re-designation as a Technician vide order dated 31.07.1982 as a promotion granted to him. The respondent shall therefore, be entitled to the two ACP benefits under the ACP Scheme on completion of 12 and 24 years of service.
17. Appropriate order in this regard shall be passed by the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today, and the consequential benefits shall be released to the respondent, along with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
18. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J MADHU JAIN, J DECEMBER 4, 2025/ys/P/Yg