Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Khairati Lal - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/712752
SubjectService
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided OnFeb-12-2007
Case NumberW.P.(C) 8045/2002 and CM 13699/2002
Judge Mukul Mudgal and; Aruna Suresh, JJ.
Reported in138(2007)DLT148; 2007(95)DRJ194
ActsConstitution of India - Article 226
AppellantUnion of India (Uoi)
RespondentKhairati Lal
Appellant Advocate Kumar Rajesh Singh, Adv
Respondent Advocate K.K. Patel, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredUnion of India v. K.V. Jankiraman
Excerpt:
service - promotion - penalty of stoppage of privilege passes imposed upon respondent - on appeal tribunal directed respondent to grant adhoc promotion to respondent from the date from which his juniors were promoted - petition - whether tribunal justified in granting promotion to respondent - facts revealed that respondent was only required to be promoted prospectively - further, promotion was granted in accordance with the petitioner's circular - no infirmity in tribunal's order - petition dismissed - - accordingly, we are satisfied that the application of the said instructions extracted above, by the tribunal is eminently justified and calls for no interference under article 226 of the constitution.mukul mudgal, j.1. rule db. with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. the respondent khairati lal was working as apo as a group 'b' officer and was deemed to be considered by a dpc for being placed in the senior scale on adhoc basis upon being found fit by such dpc. for the period from 1989 to 1993, the dpc held, did not find him fit for promotion to the senior scale. on 25.03.1991, the respondent was issued a charge sheet for imposition of major penalty and another charge sheet dated 24.10.1997 for the imposition of minor penalty that resulted in the findings of the dpc regarding his promotion to the senior scale being kept in sealed cover. in both the enquiries the respondent was found guilty and he was imposed minor penalty of stoppage of three sets of privileges passes in the major penalty charge sheet and three sets of privilege tickets in the minor penalty proceedings. 3. the respondent filed oa being no. 1704/1997 before the central administrative tribunal challenging the departmental enquiries and the punishment imposed upon him. the said oa was disposed of by the tribunal vide its order dated 4th september, 1998 directing the petitioners to take a decision with regard to the date from which his promotion would take effect and to pay consequential benefits, if any, within a period of three months from the receipt of the copy of the order. 4. in consonant with the order of the oa, the matter was considered and general manager held that the respondent could be promoted only with effect from 31.08.1998, when he took charge of the higher post. this led to another chain of litigation. in the second oa filed by the respondent being oa no. 1182/2001 before the central administrative tribunal, it was directed by the tribunal to give adhoc promotion to the respondent in the senior scale from the date of his juniors have been promoted along with consequential benefits within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. the tribunal quashed the order dated 10.03.1999 to the extent that the claim of the respondent for consideration him in the higher rank from the date of his juniors has been promoted along with consequential benefits has been rejected by the petitioners. 5. this writ petition challenges the order dated 8th august, 2002 passed by the central administrative tribunal (cat) in oa no. 1182/2001 filed by respondent no. 1. the only issue we are concerned with in this writ petition is in respect of the minor penalty and the application of railway board's letter dated 17th january, 1996, which reads as follows:however, in the case of ad hoc promotions from group 'b' to group 'a' and promotion within group 'a' (up to and including promotions to sa grade) those imposed with minor penalties of censure, stoppage of passes, ptos recovery from pay, reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay, and withholding of increments may also be promoted prospectively in their turn with reference to their position in earlier panel(s) of the dpc. in the case of those imposed with minor penalty of reduction to a lower stage in time-scale of pay or withholding they cannot, however, be promoted before the expiry of the penalty. however, where the penalty of withholding of increment is to become operative from a future date, the persons concerned should be promoted in his turn prospectively with reference to his position in the earlier panel of the dpc and the penalty imposed in the promotion grade of a period which would not result in greater monetary loss. the pay on promotion in all these cases should be fixed under the normal rules with reference to the date of actual promotion. 6. we are concerned with the latter portion of the said instructions of the railway board's letter which led to the imposition of minor penalty and the effects thereof. the tribunal has dealt with the issue in the following terms:6. applicant had been imposed minor penalty of stoppage of passes/ptos. under these instructions such persons have to be promoted 'prospectively in their turn with reference to their position in the earlier panel(s) of the dpc'. in the case of those imposed with other minor penalties such as reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay or withholding, they cannot be promoted before the expiry of the penalty. these instructions are absolutely clear that promotion in the case of stoppage of passes ptos has not to be related to the expiry of the penalty but to prospective promotion in their turn with reference to their position in earlier panel(s) of the dpc. it is appropriate to mention here that modified instructions of the railway board on the issue contained in circular dated 17.1.96 (annexure p-4) were not before this tribunal while dealing with the case of rajesh kumar goyal (supra). thus, in our view, the observations of that order of the tribunal are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. it is an admitted fact as per annexure p-1, the impugned order, that applicant was found fit on 1.7.1994. as he had been imposed a mere minor penalty of sops/ptos, he has to be accorded promotion in his turn with reference to his position in the panel of 1.7.94, i.e. immediately from the date his junior in that panel was granted ad hoc promotion to senior scale. he has to be given benefit of salary of the higher post in the higher scale from the date on which he would have normally been promoted but for the disciplinary proceedings. in this regard, we place reliance on union of india v. k.v. jankiraman : (1991)iillj570sc , in which it was held as follows:24. it was further contended on their behalf that the normal rule is 'no work no pay'. hence a person cannot be allowed to draw the benefits of a post the duties of which he has not discharged. to allow him to do so is against the elementary rule that a person is to be paid only for the work he has done and not for the work he has not done. as against this, it was pointed out on behalf of the concerned employees, that on many occasions even frivolous proceedings are instituted at the instance of interested persons, sometimes with a specific object of denying the promotion due, and the employee concerned is made to suffer but mental agony and privations which aqre multiplied when he is also place under suspension. when, thereforee, at the end of such sufferings, he comes out with a clean bill, he has to be restored to all the benefits from which he was kept away unjustly. 8. having regard to the reasons recorded and discussion made above, this oa is allowed quashing and setting aside order dated 12/22.9.2000 and also quashing order dated 10.3.99 to the extent that the claim of the applicant for consideration in the higher rank from the date his junior has been promoted along with consequential benefits has been rejected by the respondents. respondents are directed to accord ad hoc promotion to the applicant in the senior scale from the date of his juniors have been promoted along with consequential benefits. respondents are further directed to implement the above orders within a period of two months from the date of communication of these orders. no costs.7. it is not in dispute that the petitioner was only required to be promoted prospectively and the impugned order of the tribunal merely grants him promotion in accordance with the above circular. it is also not in dispute that the promotion is prospective and the promotion has been granted with reference to the position of the petitioner in the earlier panel of the dpc and from the date when his juniors have been promoted. accordingly, we are satisfied that the application of the said instructions extracted above, by the tribunal is eminently justified and calls for no interference under article 226 of the constitution. accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. all pending applications also stand disposed of.
Judgment:

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. Rule DB. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. The Respondent Khairati Lal was working as APO as a Group 'B' officer and was deemed to be considered by a DPC for being placed in the senior scale on adhoc basis upon being found fit by such DPC. For the period from 1989 to 1993, the DPC held, did not find him fit for promotion to the senior scale. On 25.03.1991, the Respondent was issued a charge sheet for imposition of major penalty and another charge sheet dated 24.10.1997 for the imposition of minor penalty that resulted in the findings of the DPC regarding his promotion to the senior scale being kept in sealed cover. In both the enquiries the Respondent was found guilty and he was imposed minor penalty of stoppage of three sets of privileges passes in the major penalty charge sheet and three sets of privilege tickets in the minor penalty proceedings.

3. The Respondent filed OA being No. 1704/1997 before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the departmental enquiries and the punishment imposed upon him. The said OA was disposed of by the Tribunal vide its order dated 4th September, 1998 directing the Petitioners to take a decision with regard to the date from which his promotion would take effect and to pay consequential benefits, if any, within a period of three months from the receipt of the copy of the order.

4. In consonant with the order of the OA, the matter was considered and General Manager held that the Respondent could be promoted only with effect from 31.08.1998, when he took charge of the higher post. This led to another chain of litigation. In the second OA filed by the Respondent being OA No. 1182/2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, it was directed by the Tribunal to give adhoc promotion to the Respondent in the senior scale from the date of his juniors have been promoted Along with consequential benefits within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. The Tribunal quashed the order dated 10.03.1999 to the extent that the claim of the Respondent for consideration him in the higher rank from the date of his juniors has been promoted Along with consequential benefits has been rejected by the Petitioners.

5. This writ petition challenges the order dated 8th August, 2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in OA No. 1182/2001 filed by respondent No. 1. The only issue we are concerned with in this writ petition is in respect of the minor penalty and the application of Railway Board's letter dated 17th January, 1996, which reads as follows:

However, in the case of ad hoc promotions from Group 'B' to group 'A' and promotion within Group 'A' (up to and including promotions to SA Grade) those imposed with minor penalties of Censure, stoppage of passes, PTOs recovery from pay, reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay, and withholding of increments may also be promoted prospectively in their turn with reference to their position in earlier panel(s) of the DPC. In the case of those imposed with minor penalty of reduction to a lower stage in time-scale of pay or withholding they cannot, however, be promoted before the expiry of the penalty. However, where the penalty of withholding of increment is to become operative from a future date, the persons concerned should be promoted in his turn prospectively with reference to his position in the earlier panel of the DPC and the penalty imposed in the promotion grade of a period which would not result in greater monetary loss. The pay on promotion in all these cases should be fixed under the normal rules with reference to the date of actual promotion.

6. We are concerned with the latter portion of the said instructions of the Railway Board's letter which led to the imposition of minor penalty and the effects thereof. The Tribunal has dealt with the issue in the following terms:

6. Applicant had been imposed minor penalty of stoppage of passes/PTOs. Under these instructions such persons have to be promoted 'prospectively in their turn with reference to their position in the earlier panel(s) of the DPC'. In the case of those imposed with other minor penalties such as reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay or withholding, they cannot be promoted before the expiry of the penalty. These instructions are absolutely clear that promotion in the case of stoppage of passes PTOs has not to be related to the expiry of the penalty but to prospective promotion in their turn with reference to their position in earlier panel(s) of the DPC. It is appropriate to mention here that modified instructions of the Railway Board on the issue contained in Circular dated 17.1.96 (Annexure P-4) were not before this Tribunal while dealing with the case of Rajesh Kumar Goyal (supra). Thus, in our view, the observations of that order of the Tribunal are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

7. It is an admitted fact as per Annexure P-1, the impugned order, that applicant was found fit on 1.7.1994. As he had been imposed a mere minor penalty of SOPs/PTOs, he has to be accorded promotion in his turn with reference to his position in the panel of 1.7.94, i.e. immediately from the date his junior in that panel was granted ad hoc promotion to senior scale. He has to be given benefit of salary of the higher post in the higher scale from the date on which he would have normally been promoted but for the disciplinary proceedings. In this regard, we place reliance on Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman : (1991)IILLJ570SC , in which it was held as follows:

24. It was further contended on their behalf that the normal rule is 'no work no pay'. Hence a person cannot be allowed to draw the benefits of a post the duties of which he has not discharged. To allow him to do so is against the elementary rule that a person is to be paid only for the work he has done and not for the work he has not done. as against this, it was pointed out on behalf of the concerned employees, that on many occasions even frivolous proceedings are instituted at the instance of interested persons, sometimes with a specific object of denying the promotion due, and the employee concerned is made to suffer but mental agony and privations which aqre multiplied when he is also place under suspension. When, thereforee, at the end of such sufferings, he comes out with a clean bill, he has to be restored to all the benefits from which he was kept away unjustly. 8. Having regard to the reasons recorded and discussion made above, this OA is allowed quashing and setting aside order dated 12/22.9.2000 and also quashing order dated 10.3.99 to the extent that the claim of the applicant for consideration in the higher rank from the date his junior has been promoted along with consequential benefits has been rejected by the respondents. Respondents are directed to accord ad hoc promotion to the applicant in the senior scale from the date of his juniors have been promoted along with consequential benefits. Respondents are further directed to implement the above orders within a period of two months from the date of communication of these orders. No costs.

7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was only required to be promoted prospectively and the impugned order of the Tribunal merely grants him promotion in accordance with the above circular. It is also not in dispute that the promotion is prospective and the promotion has been granted with reference to the position of the petitioner in the earlier panel of the DPC and from the date when his juniors have been promoted. Accordingly, we are satisfied that the application of the said instructions extracted above, by the Tribunal is eminently justified and calls for no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of.