Rajpal Singh Vs. Uoi and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
$~9 * in the high court of delhi at new delhi % date of decision : april 22, 2013 + w.p.(c) 6195/2012 rajpal singh represented by: ..... petitioner mr.v.p.s.tyagi, advocate versus uoi & ors. represented by: ..... respondents ms.barkha babbar, advocate coram: hon'ble mr. justice pradeep nandrajog hon'ble mr. justice v. kameswar rao pradeep nandrajog , j.(oral) 1. vide impugned order dated march 23, 2012, review whereof was declined vide order dated july 24, 2012, which order is also under challenge, the tribunal has required the respondent to re-consider the matter pertaining to recovery of excess payment if any made to the petitioner after june, 1998; returning a determinative finding that when he joined service in the corps of eme of the indian army in the year 1987, petitioner would be entitled to be placed in the pay scale `950-1500, later on revised to `30504500, and thus first acp benefit would entitle him to be placed in the pay scale `4000-6000. petitioner was claiming a right to be placed in the pay scale `1200-1800 which was replaced by the scale `4000-6000 and hence acp benefit in the pay scale `5000-8000.2. it is not in dispute that in the corps of eme, pertaining to artisans, there were three posts in three pay scales as under:(i) skilled. `260-400. replacement scale `950-1500 further enhanced to `3050-4500. (ii) high skilled grade ii. `330-480. replacement scale `1200- 1800 further enhanced to `5000-8000. (iii) high skilled grade i. `380-560. replacement and further enhanced scale not noted being not relevant.3. it is not in dispute that the petitioner was an ex-serviceman and when employed in the corps or eme in the year 1987 was paid salary in the pay scale `1200-1800. this continued for years together when the respondents took the stand that the petitioner had to be paid salary in the pay scale `950-1500; a stand with which the tribunal has agreed. the resultant effect is the petitioner being given acp benefit by putting him in the pay scale `4000-6000 as against `5000-8000, which he claims, and recoveries made.4. we do not find any good reason given by the tribunal to return the finding in favour of the department, but learned counsel for the respondents states that in the artisan cadre the lowest post is that of a skilled worker and therefrom would urge that the petitioner could not have been paid salary in the grade applicable to a high-skilled worker: h.s-grade ii.5. now, what is the basis to urge said fact is not disclosed from the pleadings save and except a reliance upon the applicable recruitment rule for the post of skilled worker which shows that ex-serviceman can be appointed to said post. but, in the absence of showing to us the recruitment rule to the post of high skilled grade-ii workman, it would not be possible to hold that under no circumstances could the petitioner be appointed as high skilled grade-ii workman; for the reason what if the recruitment rule to the said post envisages induction of ex-serviceman? 6. in any case, the issue has to be decided with reference to the application filed by the petitioner when he sought employment, for if it was for a post of skilled workman or a high skilled workman, consequences will flow accordingly. it has also to be seen as to what orders were passed on the file and what is the language of the appointment order under which the petitioner was appointed.7. under the circumstances we dispose of the writ petition requiring the respondents to ignore the order passed by the tribunal and since the tribunal has itself remanded the matter to the respondents, we direct that at the remanded stage the respondents would look into their records and seek guidance from our opinion above.8. no costs.9. dasti. cm no. 16628/2012 dismissed as infructuous. (pradeep nandrajog) judge (v. kameswar rao) judge april 22 2013 mamta

Judgment:
$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : April 22, 2013 + W.P.(C) 6195/2012 RAJPAL SINGH Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.V.P.S.Tyagi, Advocate versus UOI & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Barkha Babbar, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG , J.

(Oral) 1. Vide impugned order dated March 23, 2012, review whereof was declined vide order dated July 24, 2012, which order is also under challenge, the Tribunal has required the respondent to re-consider the matter pertaining to recovery of excess payment if any made to the petitioner after June, 1998; returning a determinative finding that when he joined service in the Corps of EME of the Indian Army in the year 1987, petitioner would be entitled to be placed in the pay scale `950-1500, later on revised to `30504500, and thus first ACP benefit would entitle him to be placed in the pay scale `4000-6000. Petitioner was claiming a right to be placed in the pay scale `1200-1800 which was replaced by the scale `4000-6000 and hence ACP benefit in the pay scale `5000-8000.

2. It is not in dispute that in the corps of EME, pertaining to artisans, there were three posts in three pay scales as under:(i) Skilled. `260-400. Replacement scale `950-1500 further enhanced to `3050-4500. (ii) High skilled Grade II. `330-480. Replacement scale `1200- 1800 further enhanced to `5000-8000. (iii) High skilled Grade I. `380-560. Replacement and further enhanced scale not noted being not relevant.

3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was an ex-serviceman and when employed in the corps or EME in the year 1987 was paid salary in the pay scale `1200-1800. This continued for years together when the respondents took the stand that the petitioner had to be paid salary in the pay scale `950-1500; a stand with which the Tribunal has agreed. The resultant effect is the petitioner being given ACP benefit by putting him in the pay scale `4000-6000 as against `5000-8000, which he claims, and recoveries made.

4. We do not find any good reason given by the Tribunal to return the finding in favour of the department, but learned counsel for the respondents states that in the artisan cadre the lowest post is that of a Skilled worker and therefrom would urge that the petitioner could not have been paid salary in the grade applicable to a High-Skilled worker: H.S-Grade II.

5. Now, what is the basis to urge said fact is not disclosed from the pleadings save and except a reliance upon the applicable Recruitment Rule for the post of Skilled worker which shows that ex-serviceman can be appointed to said post. But, in the absence of showing to us the Recruitment Rule to the post of High Skilled Grade-II workman, it would not be possible to hold that under no circumstances could the petitioner be appointed as High Skilled Grade-II Workman; for the reason what if the Recruitment Rule to the said post envisages induction of ex-serviceman? 6. In any case, the issue has to be decided with reference to the application filed by the petitioner when he sought employment, for if it was for a post of Skilled Workman or a High Skilled Workman, consequences will flow accordingly. It has also to be seen as to what orders were passed on the file and what is the language of the appointment order under which the petitioner was appointed.

7. Under the circumstances we dispose of the writ petition requiring the respondents to ignore the order passed by the Tribunal and since the Tribunal has itself remanded the matter to the respondents, we direct that at the remanded stage the respondents would look into their records and seek guidance from our opinion above.

8. No costs.

9. DASTI. CM No. 16628/2012 Dismissed as infructuous. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (V. KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE APRIL 22 2013 mamta