Sehrawat v. Ashok Mudgal

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners, challenging the Order dated 17.08.2023 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No.1669/2018, titled Ashok Mudgal v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., whereby the learned Tribunal allowed the O.A. filed by the respondent herein by setting aside the Order dated 04.08.2017 issued by the petitioner no.2, and further directed that the petitioner no.2 to revise the sanction of financial upgradation to the respondent to the Grade Pay of Rs.6600/-in the revised Pay Scale of Rs.15,600-39,100 with effect from 01.01.2006. Prior thereto, the respondent was held entitled to the placement in the Pay Scale of his post as it was then existing, that is, Rs.10,000-15,200, by applying the provisions of Clause 7 of the OM dated 09.08.1999 announcing the Assured Career Progression Scheme (in short ‘ACP Scheme’).

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent was not entitled to the upgradation to the Pay Scale of Rs.15,600-39,100 (S-19 Scale), as he was posted as an Assistant Engineer with the petitioner no.4 in the Pay Scale S-12. In terms of Clause 7 of the ACP Scheme, he was entitled to a financial upgradation to the Pay Scale of S-13 only, and not to S-19 as erroneously granted by the learned Tribunal.

3. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, upon an advance notice of this petition, submits that the respondent had been working with the petitioner no.3, namely, the Delhi Energy Development Agency, which at the relevant time had a post of EE (Mechanical). Though, upon the repatriation of the person appointed to the said post, it was not filled up, the person working as Project Manager/Project Director was given charge of the same, and the pay scale of EE (Mechanical) was granted to him. AE (Mechanical) was a feeder cadre for the post of EE (Mechanical). He submits that, therefore, the respondent was rightly granted the ACP Scheme benefit for the higher post of EE (Mechanical).

4. The above submission has been refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, who submits that the respondent is working with the petitioner no.4 on an isolated post and that there is no post of EE (Mechanical) in the cadre of the petitioner no.4.

5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

6. At the outset, what strikes us is that the learned Tribunal, while allowing the O.A. filed by the respondent, has not given any reasons for its decision. The aforesaid submissions also do not find any discussion in the Impugned Order.

7. At this stage, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent very fairly prays that the Impugned Order be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the learned Tribunal for a fresh determination.

8. Accordingly, the Impugned Order dated 17.08.2023 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.1669/2018 is hereby set aside. The O.A. is restored back to its original number. The matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal for a fresh consideration after hearing the parties.

9. The parties shall be entitled to file additional affidavits/written submissions in support of their respective claims before the learned Tribunal.

10. As the O.A. had been filed in the year 2018, we request the learned Tribunal to expedite the adjudication thereof and decide the same preferably within a period of six months from the first listing before the learned Tribunal.

11. The parties shall appear before the learned Tribunal on 11th September, 2025.

12. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J MADHU JAIN, J AUGUST 20, 2025/ns/DG