6 April 2020


Judgments

High Court of Delhi

Bijender Singh Meena Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

MANU/DE/1145/2019

04.04.2019

Service

An employee directly recruited vis-a-vis another who is promoted must be treated equal in all respects

Vide the present petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order by which the Respondents has rejected the representation of the Petitioner to grant the benefits and arrears of pay fixation of selection grade pay of Rs 3100 w.e.f. 7th June, 1996 and pay revision based on that. He further seeks upgradation as per the approval of the Board of Directors in their Resolution dated 12th March, 2014. He also seeks benefits of TBPS (Time Bound Promotional Scale) as given to the other similarly placed employees of the IPGCL with financial benefits as a consequence of quashing the order dated 30th March, 2016.

The Board of Directors on 7th November, 2012 vide Resolution No. 62.2.13 and 59.2.9 approved unified Rules of promotion as well as rationalisation of scales/grade pay/posts in IPGCL/PPCL. In para 3.4 of the said Resolution, it is proposed that only ` 3100 grade pay may be treated as selection grade and all the employees (as against 30% proposed earlier) who meet the basic eligibility of promotion may be granted the grade pay of ` 3100 on completion of 5 years of regular service, subject to fitness by DPC.

In the case of Union of India vs. Atul Shukla, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there can be no differential treatment between an employee directly recruited vis-a-vis another who is promoted. So long as the two employees are a part of the same cadre, they cannot be treated differently either for purposes of pay and allowances or other conditions of service, including the age of superannuation. They must be treated equal in all respects i.e. salary, other benefits and the age of superannuation.

The Petitioner was re-designated as a Fitter Mechanic Grade-II in the pay band of ` 8500-26300 in the grade pay of ` 3100 w.e.f. 7th June, 1996 as per rules of Unified Rules of Promotion as well as rationalization of scales/grade pay/posts in IPGCL/PPCL by the office order with the approval of the Board of Directors vide Board Resolution No. 62.2.13 and 59.2.9 dated 7th November, 2012. Thereafter, vide office order dated 6th May, 2014, the Respondents had placed seven employees of Annexure P-4 from serial No. 01 to 07 from W-4 level to W-5 level leaving behind the Petitioner which was discriminatory and arbitrary order of the Respondents.

The Memorandum dated 30th March, 2016 passed by the Respondents is quashed. Consequently, the Petitioner is entitled to the benefits and arrears of pay fixation of selection grade pay of ` 3100 w.e.f. 7th June, 1996 and pay revision with further upgradation as per the approval of the Board of Directors in their resolution No. 68.2.4 and 65.2.4 dated 12th March, 2014. The Petitioner is also entitled to the benefits of TBPS at par with other similarly placed employees of IPGCL. Petition allowed.

Relevant

Union of India vs. Atul Shukla: MANU/SC/0866/2014

Tags : Pay fixation Promotion Benefits

Share :