Dileep Kumar & Anr v. UOI & Anr

order.

¶14Even in the petition filed by the petitioner against the order of the Tribunal declining the relief to place them in DPA ' B", the petitioners have not challenged the stipulation in the letter dated 20th January, 1995 that the selectees against the vacancies released in the past for direct recruitment to the grade of technical assistant will be placed in the scale of Rs.1600-2660 (DPA Grade A) from the dates of their appointment. Rather the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint them as per the terms of letter dated 20th January, 1995. The petitioners who were appointed later on and who had accepted their appointment to DPA Grade A cannot claim that they be treated at par with those who had already been appointed by the said date. In view of the specific stipulation in the said letter, the petitioners cannot rely on the fact that the process of selection had started prior to said letter of 20th January, 1995.

¶15In the circumstances there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the Tribunal declining the petitioners the relief to place them in DPA `B" on their appointment in 1995 and 1996. The petitioners have failed to point out any illegality or un-sustainability in the order of the Tribunal requiring exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition in the facts and circumstances is without any merit and it is dismissed. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

VEENA BIRBAL, J. JANUARY 31, 2011

rs

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.10456-57/2004 Date of Decision: 31.01.2011 Sh.Dileep Kumar & Anr. …. Petitioners Through Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate Versus UOI & Anr. …. Respondents Through Mr. R.V. Sinha and Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates ANIL KUMAR, J. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO 1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 18th December, 2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA No. 550/2003 titled as Sh. Dileep Kumar & Anr Vs. UOI & Anr., declining the claim of the petitioners to direct the respondents to grant the re-designated category of DPA(B) along with the revised grade of DPA(B) to the petitioners w.e.f. the date of their respective appointments. 2. Brief facts to comprehend the disputes between the parties are that petitioner No. 1 applied for the post of Technical Assistant in the Armed Forces Headquarters, Ministry of Defense through the UPSC and petitioner no. 2 also applied for the post of Technical Assistant in Armed Forces Headquarters, Ministry of Defense against the substantive vacancies through the UPSC. 3. By a letter dated 2nd February, 1995, issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Defense, petitioner no. 1 was informed of having been nominated by UPSC for appointment to the post of Technical Assistant re-designated as DPA(A). Pursuant thereto by a letter dated 2nd August, 1995, the post of Technical Assistant DPA(A) was offered to the petitioner no. 1 and by order dated 22nd August, 1995 petitioner No. 1 was appointed as DPA (A) in the scale of 1600-2660. 4. Petitioner no. 2 was informed of having been nominated by UPSC for appointment to the post of Technical Assistant by letter dated 16th May, 1996 and by letter dated 20th June, 1996, he was appointed as DPA(A) in the grade of 1600-2660 w.e.f. 13th June, 1996. 5. Pursuant to the report of 4th Pay Commission, in paragraph 11.45 suggesting re-organization of EDP post and to prescribe uniform pay scales and designation, department of Electronics undertook the task of rationalization of the pay scales of EDP posts and the revised pay structures for EDP posts. The 4th Pay Commission had recommended the grant of revised pay scales w.e.f. 1st January, 1986. On 8th January, 1991, the pay scales of EDP Posts in the Joint Cipher Bureau (hereinafter referred to as JCB), Ministry of Defense in different grades of EDP (Discipline) were revised and the posts were re-designated. Vide order No. A/26031/EDP/JCB/CAO/CP/GI Ministry of Defense office of JS (Trg) and CMO dated 20th January, 1995, the sanction of the President of India was conveyed in the placement of incumbents to the EDP posts in JCB, MO, Defense in different grades of the EDP Discipline posts. 6. Though the petitioners had not been appointed by 20th January, 1995 on which date, the rationalization of pay scale/structure of EDP post in JCB was done, some of the Technical Assistants, who were already working, were placed in Grade-B, 2000-3200 who were possessing the qualification of Graduate in Science/Maths/Statistics/ Economics and who had a certificate in Computer Programming whereas other Technical Assistants who did not possess the above qualifications were placed in the scale of 1600-2660 and were not designated as DPA(B). Those Technical Assistants, who were placed in the lower grade of DPA(A), had challenged their placement in Grade-A especially as certain juniors of some of the Technical Assistants were placed in the higher grade of DPA Grade-B on the basis of their qualification. These Technical Assistants, who were already employed, had filed original applications, which were disposed of with the direction that the respondents shall consider without insisting on eligibility criteria prescribed in the year 1995, as the