V.K. Bali, J. (Chairman)
1. Mrs. Manju Singh, who started her career as a TGT (Home Science) in Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Kalyanpuri on 19.4.1984, clamors for grant of senior scale admissible to a teacher after putting in 12 years of service. The applicant, for denial of the desired relief squarely blames the respondents for dealing her case in a careless, indifferent, irresponsible and callous manner.
2. The undisputed facts reveal that the applicant was appointed as TGT (Home Science) on 19.4.1984. Having put in service of 12 years she became entitled to senior scale of Rs. 6500-200-10500 w.e.f. 19.4.1996. She joined Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, Malviya Nagar on 21.8.2001. The DPC for grant of senior scale to the applicant and others was held on 29.1.2004 wherein the applicant was recommended for grant of senior scale which would be effective from 19.4.1996. Having not received her due despite her eligibility and recommendation made by the DPC, she addressed a letter to the Education Officer on 13.12.2004 in which she pointed out that senior scale had become due to her on 19.4.1996 but the same was not granted to her. She further stated that despite DPC recommendations dated 29.1.2004 she was deprived of senior scale. When the entreaties of the applicant brought no tangible result, she sent a reminder to Education Officer on 20.3.2005. The Education Officer addressed a letter dated 10.6.2005 to Administrative Officer, Establishment-III Branch clearly bringing out that the file of the applicant had been sent to Establishment-III Branch on 9.6.2005 but had not been received back. It was further pointed out by him that senior scale had been recommended by the DPC w.e.f. April, 1996 after completion of 12 years of service in the same scale and post. The letter of Education Officer containing all material particulars which may entitle the applicant for grant of senior scale fell on deaf ears. Having received no communication in that behalf, the applicant was constrained to write yet another letter to the Director, Directorate of Education on 30.9.2005 imploring him to look into the matter and grant her promotion as PGT from 6.5.1998. On 14.10.2005, Deputy Education Officer made a note to the school for forwarding the information regarding appointment/promotion of the applicant as the information had to be supplied to Joint director, Education, Estt.-II Branch. The applicant addressed yet another letter to the DDO, SKV Malviya Nagar asking him to forward copies of her appointment letter and promotion order to the office of DDE, South District so that her case could be promptly processed. On 5.4.2006 she once again addressed a letter to the Director to intervene in the matter as no progress had taken place on the recommendations of the DPC. A similar reminder was sent by her to the office of Hon’ble Lt. Governor on 5.6.2006. On 1.8.2006, the ACP Cell of the Directorate sent a letter to the DDE wherein it was pointed out that the file of senior scale of the applicant had been sent to the office of A.O. (E-III) Branch on 9.6.2004 as per letter of DDE dated 21.6.2006 but the same had in fact not been received by the E-III Branch and, therefore, the DDE should personally look into the matter. On 21.8.2006 the applicant again wrote to the Hon’ble Lt. Governor bringing to his notice that despite her personal hearing with the OSD and a letter dated 20.6.2006 having been sent to DE (Education) and her regular follow up with all Branches, there was no relief forthcoming to her. On 7.9.2006 she addressed a letter to Secretary, Education, Delhi Administration wherein she brought to her notice that despite recommendation of DPC on 29.1.2004 and her suffering for ten years, senior scale was not being granted to her. She also pointed out that because of all the stress and harassment, mental and physical, she suffered heart problem and had to undergo open heart surgery, and that she is living alone as her husband who is an Army officer is posted elsewhere, and she is unable to cope up with the mental trauma of being deprived of what she is entitled to even admittedly by the respondents, and she is not getting the same only because of their negligent and callous attitude. To the utter shock of the applicant, instead of receiving her scale and dues, she received a letter dated 26.8.2006 from the Education Officer addressed to the Principal of the school wherein it was mentioned that the file of the applicant had been sent to AO (E-III) by Personnel Branch of DDE(S) on 9.6.2004 but the ACP Cell had informed by letter dated 1.8.2006 that the file was not received in the E-III Branch, and, therefore, a decision was taken to consider the case of the applicant as a fresh case and accordingly the fresh case was to be put up before the DPC of September, 2006, but even that was not done. On 19.6.2006, the Principal asked the applicant to produce relevant papers regarding her senior scale. On the same day itself the applicant gave in writing to the Principal that all relevant papers were/are with the office/in her file held by the office. On 5.10.2006 the applicant addressed yet another letter to the Principal of the school that senior scale had already been recommended by the DPC on 29.1.2004 and that she was not holding any documents. She, therefore, requested that necessary orders should be issued for her senior scale at the earliest. Having not obtained the desired relief based upon her eligibility and entitlement, the applicant has approached this Tribunal for grant of senior scale.
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal the respondents have entered appearance and filed their written statement. As mentioned above, the facts narrated in the Application have not been controverted. The learned Counsel for the respondents under the weight of facts of this case, finding no defence which may have a space for even a pin to go, was unable to oppose the cause of the applicant, or for that matter, even to defend non-action of the respondents. During the course of arguments, in fact, when unable to find any positive defence, he had to, per force the circumstances say that the applicant be given the senior scale of Rs. 6500-10500 w.e.f. 19.4.1996. We appreciate the counsel for the respondents not joining any issue in an indefensible cause, as surely, it is the duty of the government advocate to assist the Court and not as a matter of routine to oppose even a justified claim of a citizen.
4. From the uncontroverted facts, as detailed above, it is absolutely clear that the applicant was entitled to senior scale of Rs. 6500-10500 w.e.f. 19.4.1996 having rendered 12 years service, and that the DPC constituted in the matter had favourably recommended the case of applicant for grant of senior scale on 29.1.2004. There was no dispute ever on these basic facts and yet the respondents having lost or misplaced the file of the applicant, would make her toss like a shuttle cock. Once, the eligibility or entitlement of the applicant was not in dispute, nor was it also ever in dispute that the DPC indeed had recommended the case of the applicant for grant of senior scale so authenticated by none other than the Education Officer himself, the mere fact that the file of the applicant was not traceable should not have come in the way of granting the relief to the applicant. The attitude indulged in by the respondents was not only casual/indifferent but also callous. The case provides a classic example of a known bureaucratic attitude of shirking to take responsibility. No body gathered courage to grant the relief to the applicant despite an unambiguous position that the applicant was out and out eligible and entitled for senior scale, for the sole reason that no body would like to take responsibility for passing an order in absence of the file which was missing or untraceable. This attitude of shirking responsibility even when it may be certain in the facts and circumstances of the case that no blame can possibly come to a person who may take a decision, has constrained hundreds of thousands of persons to seek solace from judicial fora, resulting into untold miseries to citizens, and over-filling and over-brimming dockets of the Courts at every level. The attitude of the respondents in the present case in shirking to pass orders simply because no blame may come upon them as the file was not traceable even though the relevant facts were admitted by the respondents, needs to be deprecated. The applicant is wife of an Army officer who is posted elsewhere and has to fend for herself. Anyone under such circumstances as the applicant went through would suffer pain and agony. It is the positive case of the applicant that the harassment meted out to her resulted in heart problem and she had to undergo open heart surgery. In these days of spiraling prices the applicant is deprived of whatever little enhancement that comes in the way of a Government employee.
5. In view of the discussion made above, we allow this Application and direct the respondents to forthwith grant senior scale to the applicant as admissible under rules. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, we order the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum on delayed amount that be now assessed as arrears payable to the applicant. The applicant shall also be entitled to cost which we hereby quantify at Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand).