Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 07th February, 2023
K. SREEDHARAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Khagesh B. Jha and Ms. Shikha Sharma Bagga, Advocates.
Through: Ms. Laavanya Kaushik, Mr. N.K. Singh and Ms. Aliza Alam, Advocates for Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel for R-1.
JUDGMENT
CM Nos.7060/2020, 7381/2021 & 30801/2021
1. These applications have been preferred by the Petitioner seeking early hearing of the writ petition.
2. Since the writ petition is being taken up for hearing today, no further orders are required to be passed in the applications, which are accordingly allowed and disposed of.
3. By this writ petition, Petitioner seeks directions to Respondent Nos.[2] to 3/Ramjas Boys Secondary School (hereinafter referred to as ‘the School’) to constitute Departmental Screening Committee (‘DSC’) for grant of MACP w.e.f. 01.09.2008 and a direction to Respondent No.1/Government of NCT of Delhi to approve the same. Relief of grant of pension w.e.f. 01.07.2012 with all consequential benefits is also sought.
4. Factual score to the extent relevant is that Petitioner joined the School as Group ‘D’ employee on 01.05.1974 and was promoted to the post of Lab Assistant w.e.f. 15.07.1985 in the Pay Scale of Rs.330- 530 (Pre-revised Rs.1200-2040). He was placed in the Selection Grade Rs.530-610 (Pre-revised Rs.1350-2200) w.e.f. 15.07.1985.
5. On completion of 24 years of regular service, Petitioner was granted 2nd ACP w.e.f. 09.08.1999 on recommendation of a duly constituted DSC as per Rule 96(3) of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules 1973’).
6. Pursuant to the recommendations of 6th CPC, Government of India introduced the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (‘MACP’) by O.M dated 19.05.2009 effective from 01.09.2008. The grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ petition pertains to nongrant of 3rd MACP benefits, on completion of 30 years of regular service.
7. It is contended by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner that Petitioner was appointed as a Class IV employee on 01.05.1974 and promoted as a Lab Assistant on 15.07.1985, which was his first promotion. Thereafter, Petitioner was awarded the Selection Grade w.e.f. 15.07.1985 in the Scale of Rs.530-610 and since this was not to be counted as upgradation/promotion, he was granted benefit under 2nd ACP w.e.f. 09.08.1999 and placed in the Pay Scale of Rs.5000-8000. Therefore, on completion of 30 years of regular service, Petitioner ought to have been granted 3rd MACP benefits in accordance with the MACP Scheme, which have been wrongly denied to him, compelling the Petitioner to file the present petition.
8. It is strenuously contended that case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Ajmer Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., 2017 SCC Online Del 10807. Ajmer Singh was appointed in 1978 and was promoted as Lab Assistant on 08.12.1981 in the Pay Scale of Rs.330-530. He was thereafter placed in the Selection Grade of Rs.530-610 w.e.f. 01.08.1982 and granted 2nd ACP in the Pay Scale of Rs.5,000-8,000, on 19.06.2002. Having been deprived of financial upgradation by way of 3rd MACP as well as recovery on account of certain issues pertaining to 2nd ACP, Ajmer Singh approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) 7517/2015. Writ petition was allowed vide judgment dated 27.09.2017, holding Ajmer Singh entitled to the financial upgradation by way of 3rd MACP based on the stand taken by the Directorate of Education itself. Significantly, the Court held that the Selection Grade granted to Ajmer Singh w.e.f. 01.08.1982 was not a promotion and would not be counted to deprive the benefits under the ACP/MACP Schemes. The case of the Petitioner, it is urged, is at par with Ajmer Singh and the writ petition deserves to be allowed by granting 3rd MACP benefits to the Petitioner on the strength of the said judgment, which is stated to have attained finality.
9. Per contra, the stand of the Respondents is that Petitioner was appointed as a Group ‘D’ employee on 01.05.1974 and was granted first promotion as Lab Assistant on 15.07.1985. Thereafter, Selection Grade was awarded to him in the Pay Scale of Rs.1200-2040 (revised under 4th CPC) and upgradation under 2nd ACP in the Pay Scale of Rs.5,000-8,000. Since the Petitioner has been granted one promotion as Lab Assistant, one Selection Grade and the benefit of 2nd ACP, he is ineligible for grant of 3rd MACP.
10. Insofar as the reliance of the Petitioner on the judgment in Ajmer Singh (supra) is concerned, it is argued that Petitioner has slept over his rights and has been a fence sitter for all these years and cannot claim parity with Ajmer Singh, who had approached the Court immediately after compulsory retirement seeking benefits under the ACP and MACP Schemes. Petitioner retired from service on 01.07.2012 and has filed the writ petition after 8 years and cannot claim parity with someone who was vigilant in prosecuting his rights. No other argument has been raised by the Respondents to distinguish the case of the Petitioner from the case of Ajmer Singh, on merits.
11. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and examined their rival contentions.
12. The heart of the dispute in the present petition lies in a narrow compass i.e. whether the Selection Grade granted to the Petitioner w.e.f. 15.07.1985 in the Pay Scale of Rs.530-610 under the 4th CPC would be counted as upgradation, disentitling the Petitioner to the benefit of 3rd MACP. In my view, as rightly contended by the counsel for the Petitioner, this issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ajmer Singh (supra). Before adverting to the observations of the Court in the said judgment, it would be useful and relevant to note the stand of the Directorate of Education itself in an order dated 02.12.2013, passed in the case of Ajmer Singh, pursuant to the order of the Court dated 09.07.2013 in the earlier writ petition filed by Ajmer Singh being W.P.(C) 3408/2011. Relevant paras of the said order as captured by the Court in Ajmer Singh (supra) are as follows:-
13. Pursuant to the directions given by the Director, the Deputy Director of Education re-examined the matter and relevant would it be to note the order passed, which is extracted hereunder for ready reference:- “And the direction to the undersigned by the competent authority in his order No.DE.15(Misc)/Act-II/2013/2599 dated 02/12/2013 contained therein in corroboration with the order passed by Hon'ble High Court dated 06/05/2014. The case of grant of MACP to Sh. Ajmer Singh was considered through DPC members under the lime light of order No.DE.15(Misc)/Act-II/2013/2599 dated 02/12/2013 and in consultation/with the advise there upon by Account functionaries of Directorate of Education. The DPC reconsidered the MACP case of Sh. Ajmer Singh Lab. Asstt., Khalsa Girls SSS, Chuna Mandi, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi, the RDE of District Central/New Delhi accorded the approval to grant MACP w.ef 01/09/2008 i.e the date of implementation of MACP Scheme.”
14. The Court in Ajmer Singh (supra), after taking note of the aforementioned orders and examining the ACP Scheme categorically rendered a finding that Selection Grade of Rs.530-610 (Pre-revised Rs.1350-2200/4th CPC) will not be counted as promotion for the purpose of ACPs and therefore held that the Petitioner was entitled to the benefit of 3rd MACP w.e.f. 01.09.2008. Relevant passages from the judgment are as follows:-
15. Therefore, it clearly emerges from the reading of the judgment in Ajmer Singh that the award of Selection Grade would not be counted as promotion/financial upgradation while considering the grant of financial upgradations under ACP/MACP Schemes and thus the prime objection of the Respondents to the grant of 3rd MACP stands negated. For the sake of completeness, I may also place on record that the case of the Petitioner is identical to the case of Ajmer Singh and the following details, put forth by the Petitioner and not denied by the Respondents would substantiate the stand of the Petitioner in this context:- S.No Benefits granted year wise Sh K.Sreedharan, Lab.Asstt (Selection Grade Holder). (1) Sh Ajmer Singh, Lab.Asstt (Selection Grade Holder). (2)
3 Granted award of Selection grade (not a promotion/up gradation) 15/07/1985 Scale 530-610 1350-2200(4th PC) 01/08/1982 Scale 530-610 1350-2200(4th PC) 4 ACP -2 09/08/1999 5000-8000 19/06/2002 5000-8000
5 Hon'ble Court ordered to grant 3rd MACP w.e.f 01/09/2008 to Shri Ajmer Singh, Lab. Asstt. Vide After repeated representation dated 21/05/2012, 10/3/2015 and 04/12/2018 the 3rd MACP has not granted to Rs: -5500-9000 (5th Pay Commission) order dated 31/07/2018 in the matter of 7517/2015. the petitioner till date in the pay scale of Rupees 5500-9000.
16. For all the aforesaid reasons, the Petitioner is eligible and cannot be denied the benefit of consideration for grant of the 3rd MACP in the light of the DOPT O.M dated 10.02.2000, the stand of the Directorate of Education in the orders passed by them, as extracted above and most importantly, the judgment of this Court in Ajmer Singh (supra), which covers the case of the Petitioner, on all four corners.
17. The writ petition is accordingly allowed directing Respondents No.2 and 3 to constitute a Departmental Screening Committee and consider the case of the Petitioner for grant of 3rd MACP, ignoring the Selection Grade granted to him w.e.f. 15.07.1985, subject to his meeting all other conditions laid down in the MACP Scheme. Needless to state that if the DSC recommends the grant of 3rd MACP, the recommendations will be forwarded to Respondent No.1 and in case of approval, all consequential benefits including revision in pension from 01.07.2012 shall be granted to the Petitioner. Since the Petitioner has approached this Court 8 years after the date of retirement interest @ 6% p.a. will be granted from the date of filing of the writ petition till actual realization.
18. Writ petition stands disposed of.
JYOTI SINGH, J FEBRUARY 07, 2023/rk/kks