* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP (C) No.5145/2005
% Date of Decision: 21.03.2011
Govt. of NCT of Delhi through its Secretary .... Petitioner
(Services)
Through Mr.V.K. Tandon, Advocate.
Versus
Shri Dinesh Verma .... Respondent
Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO
the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
CM No.13244/2010
This is an application by the petitioner/applicant for setting aside
the order of dismissal dated 30th August, 2010 of the writ petition in
default of appearance of the counsel for the petitioner and anyone on
behalf of the petitioner.
The applicant has contended that the counsel for the applicant
was not well and he had requested his associate to attend the hearing
in the Court. However the associate could not reach the Court in time
leading to dismissal of the writ petition in default.
WP(C) 5145 of 2005 Page 1 of 10
For the reasons stated in the application there is sufficient cause
for setting aside the order dated 30th August, 2010 dismissing the writ
petition in default of appearance of counsel for the petitioner.
Consequently the application is allowed, the order of dismissal
dated 30th August, 2010 is set aside and the writ petition is restored to
its original number.
W.P.(C) 5145/2005
1. The petitioner Government of NCT of Delhi has challenged the
order dated 10.12.2004 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench in O.A No.998/2004 titled “Shri Dinesh Verma Vs.
Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.” allowing the application of the
respondent and directing the petitioner to restore the benefits of ACP
Scheme to the respondent and also directing for awarding consequential
benefits.
2. Brief facts to comprehend the dispute are that the respondent
was originally appointed in Delhi Energy Development Agency (“DEDA”),
an autonomous body falling under Government of NCT of Delhi as LDC
in the pay-scale of Rs.950-1500 revised pay-scale 3050-4590 w.e.f.
01.06.1982.
3. Later on service of the respondent was declared surplus w.e.f.
30.11.1999 in DEDA. The respondent was thereafter re-deployed in the
Govt. of NCT of Delhi (“GNCTD”) w.e.f. 01.12.1999 as per CCS and CCA
WP(C) 5145 of 2005 Page 2 of 10
Rules on the same post and at the same scale through surplus cell vide
an order of GNCTD, Services -II Department being order No.
E3/77/97/S-II/263-70 dated 25th January, 2000. The order re-
deploying the respondent categorically stipulated that he is re-deployed
and not freshly appointed. The order re-deploying him after he was
declared surplus stipulated as under:
“……in terms of above mentioned rules the past services
rendered by the surplus employees prior to their
redeployment shall not count towards seniority in the Gr-IV
(DASS) under the Govt. of NCT of Delhi. However, in other
service matters they will be treated as appointed by transfer
in the public interest.”
4. The order re-deploying the respondent categorically stipulated
that he was re-deployed in the pay-scale of Rs.3050-4590 from the date
of respondent being declared surplus i.e. w.e.f. 01.12.1999 against the
post of Gr-IV (DASS) in accordance with the provisions of the CCS
(Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990.
5. The respondent was granted benefit of ACP w.e.f. 01.06.2000 by
an order dated 21.02.2002 as he had rendered adequate number of
years of regular service as contemplated under the scheme. The
respondent had contended that benefit of ACP Scheme was available in
case of re-deployed personnel by counting the regular services rendered
by them in their previous organization along with their regular service
WP(C) 5145 of 2005 Page 3 of 10
in the new organization where they were transferred in public interest
and were not freshly appointed.
6. The petitioner, however, by order dated 11.07.2003 took the
decision not to count the past service rendered in the autonomous body
for the grant of first ACP Scheme in view of the alleged clarification of
Doubt No.43 of DOPT OM No.35034/1/97-Estt. (D) (Volume IV) dated
18.07.2001.
7. Against withdrawal of ACP benefit by subsequent order which
was granted w.e.f. 01.06.2000 by order dated 21.02.2002, the
respondent made a representation and relied on Condition No.14 of
DOPT OM dated 09th August, 1999 which was further circulated by
Finance Budget Department vide its OM No.F-14/2/99-Finance (B)
dated 27.8.1999 which is as under:
“In case of an employee declared surplus in his/her
organization and in case of transfer including unilateral
transfer on request, the regular service rendered by
him/her in the previous organization shall be counted
alongwith his/her regular service in his/her new
organization for the purpose of giving financial up-
gradation under the scheme.”
8. The respondent contended that his representation was under
consideration but his claim was rejected and an order for recovery of
payment made since 01st June, 2000 was also passed which led to filing
of an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal
WP(C) 5145 of 2005 Page 4 of 10
contending inter alia that the “applicant is eligible for grant of financial
benefits under ACP Scheme in view of the Condition No.14 of DOPT OM
dated 09th August, 1999.” The respondent contended that since he was
re-deployed, therefore, it could not be held that he was directly
recruited or freshly appointed and therefore, the clarification of Doubt
No.0043 did not apply to him. Respondent also relied on the cases of
similarly placed persons who were re-deployed after being declared
surplus who were not treated as directly recruited or freshly appointed
and to whom benefit of ACP was granted counting their previous service
in the autonomous body and the subsequent service.
9. The original application was contested by the petitioner
contending inter alia that the matter pertaining to such employees as
respondent who was re-deployed was placed before a Review Screening
Committee and on the recommendation of the Screening Committee the
financial up-gradation granted was withdrawn with retrospective effect
from the date it was granted i.e. 01.06.2000. According to the
petitioner the respondent had not completed 12 years of regular service
in a civilian post of GNCTD and his past service in an autonomous body
could not be counted for ACP benefit. According to the petitioner,
withdrawal of ACP benefit from the respondent was in accordance with
clarification of Doubt No.43 of OM dated 18.07.2001 stipulating that
the service rendered in an Autonomous Body/Statutory Body/State
Government is not to be counted for the purpose.
WP(C) 5145 of 2005 Page 5 of 10
10. The Tribunal, however, allowed the application after hearing the
pleas and contentions of the parties holding that past services rendered
by such employees as respondent were not to be counted only for the
purpose of seniority, however, for all other service matters the past
service rendered in an autonomous body had to be treated as an
appointment by transfer in public interest which is also apparent from
the order of transfer dated 25th January, 2000 which is detailed herein
above. The Tribunal categorically held that if the intention was not to
give the benefit of their past service on transfer in public interest for
purpose of ACP Scheme, it could be so stated specifically in the order of
transfer which, however, only stipulated that the past service will not be
counted for the purpose of seniority and thus exception has been
carved out only for the purpose of seniority and not for other matters
pertaining to service including grant of ACP scheme.
11. Referring to the point of doubt, it has been held unequivocally
that past service is not to be counted for an employee who is appointed
on direct recruitment in which case the past service rendered in an
autonomous organization is not to be counted. Since it was not the
case of the petitioner that the respondent was directly appointed to the
Govt. of NCT of Delhi therefore, in terms of clarification No.43 of OM
dated 18.7.2001 the past service of the respondent who was re-deployed
with the Govt. of NCT of Delhi on being declared surplus in the
WP(C) 5145 of 2005 Page 6 of 10
autonomous body (DEDA) is to be counted for the purpose of ACP and
thus the Tribunal allowed the petition and directed the respondent to
restore the benefit of the ACP Scheme and also awarded the
consequential benefits.
12. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Tribunal primarily
on the ground that under the clarification issued, the past service with
an autonomous body is not to be counted on recruitment of the
respondent with the Govt. of NCT of Delhi. The learned counsel for the
petitioner also contended and relied on the order of the Tribunal in case
of M.L. Bhatt being OA No.1319/2003, where according to petitioner,
similar benefit was denied to such employees as respondent. The
learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on WP (C)
No.12246/2009 decided on 14.07.2010 titled as “Ashok Mudgal Vs.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.”.
13. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has
perused the record of the Tribunal produced along with the writ
petition. The Tribunal had distinguished the case of Sh.M.L. Bhatt in
whose case grant of ACP Scheme was denied to him holding that
paragraph 14 of the terms and conditions for grant of ACP Scheme was
not applicable in his case whereas the said paragraph squarely covers
the case of the respondent herein. Perusal of paragraph 14 of the terms
and conditions for grant of ACP Scheme clearly shows the conditions to
WP(C) 5145 of 2005 Page 7 of 10
be fulfilled before the previous service in an autonomous organization
could be counted in case of the employees who were rendered surplus
and were re-deployed. These conditions are:
(a) the employee declared surplus in the organization and
(b) it should be a case of transfer including unilateral
transfer on request.
If both conditions are being satisfied then the past service which
is regular service can be counted for the benefit of ACP Scheme.
14. The order dated 25.01.2000 by virtue of which the respondent
was taken on the rolls of Govt. of NCT of Delhi is categorical about it,
relevant portion of which is reproduced hereinabove. From the
language of the order especially the later part, it is clear that the past
service rendered by the respondent was not to be counted for purpose of
seniority only and was to be counted for other purposes. The order of
re-deployment is unambiguous and makes it categorically clear that in
all other service matter and incidences, the appointment is to be treated
as an appointment by transfer in public interest. Appointment by
transfer cannot be equated with direct recruitment. If the intention of
the ACP Scheme or the order of re-deployment was not to count the
past service of the respondent on transfer for purpose of ACP Scheme, it
could have been so stated specifically in the order. The only exception
which have been carved out, therefore, is only about the seniority,
therefore, no other view is possible except that the past service rendered
WP(C) 5145 of 2005 Page 8 of 10
by the respondent in an autonomous organization which organization
was also under the petitioner, has to be counted along with the service
with the petitioner after his re-deployment and on transfer to Govt. of
NCT of Delhi/petitioner for the purpose of ACP Scheme. Consequently
by order dated 11.07.2003, the benefits of ACP granted to the
respondent by order dated 21.02.2002 w.e.f. 01.06.2000 could not be
withdrawn.
15. The precedent Ashok Mudgal (supra) relied on by the petitioner is
distinguishable as it pertains to the benefit of the pension scheme
which was made applicable to those employees of DEDA who were re-
deployed before 01.01.2004. In that case the petitioners were granted
benefit of new pension scheme which was introduced by GNCTD and it
was in existence at the time when those petitioners had joined the
service in January, 2005 after 01st January, 2004. The petitioners in
that case were claiming the benefit of old pension scheme. Apparently
the disputes in the precedent relied on by the petitioner are not
applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. A
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Mudgal (Supra) had
held that those employees who had joined the Government after
01.01.2004 could not take advantage of the old pension scheme
retrospectively, as the appointement by transfer had not been given the
benefit of appointment from a retrospective date. In the circumstances,
on the basis of the ratio of the said judgment, it cannot be held that the
WP(C) 5145 of 2005 Page 9 of 10
respondent is not entitled for computation of his services rendered with
an autonomous organization, DEDA while considering the entitlement
of the respondent for the purpose of grant of first benefit under the ACP
Scheme.
16. In the totality of the facts and circumstances the petitioner has
failed to make out any such illegality or un-sustainability in the order of
the Tribunal which will entail any interference by this Court in exercise
of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
17. The Writ Petition in the facts and circumstances is without merit
and is, therefore, dismissed. Parties are, however, left to bear their own
costs.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
March 21, 2011 VEENA BIRBAL, J.
ac
WP(C) 5145 of 2005 Page 10 of 10