Govt.Of NCT of Delhi & Ors v. Gian Chand & Ors

SANJIV KHANNA, J APRIL 29, 2011 sv/dk

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 18th April, 2011 Date of decision: April 29, 2011 + W.P.(C) No.4895/2002 Govt. of NCT of Delhi … Petitioner Through Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate Versus Sh.Gyan Chand & Ors. … Respondents Through None CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YES DIPAK MISRA, CJ In this petition preferred under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner- Government of NCT of Delhi, has called in question the legal substantiality and sustainability of the order dated 9th April, 2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short, "the tribunal") in O.A. 647/2001. 2. The facts which are essential to be unfolded are that the respondent- employee Sh.Gyan Chand approached the tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, assailing the order dated 18th July, 2000 whereby the proposal for upgradation of the post of Workshop Superintendent was rejected. It was contended before the tribunal that the upgradation of the post was imperative to be done on the basis of various recommendations and also keeping in view the job profile of the Workshop Superintendent. Various other assertions were made claiming equivalent pay-scale to the post of Head of the Department. 3. The stand put forth by the respondent-employee was resisted by the present appellant and its functionaries contending, inter alia, that there is a gulf of difference between the qualifications prescribed for the post of Workshop Superintendent and the Head of the Department. The applicant- employee is not eligible for the post of Head of the Department as he does not fulfill the qualifications recommended for the said post and, therefore, the claim for the pay-scale of Rs.3700-5700 is not allowable. It was also urged that the duties and responsibilities for the post of Workshop Superintendent and Head of the Department are different. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Principal Bench of the tribunal in O.A. No.1311/1988 wherein the claim was dismissed on the ground that the same falls within the domain of a policy decision. 4. The tribunal referred to the recommendations of the AICTE dated 20.9.1989 regarding revision of pay-scales of teachers of technical institutions (Polytechnics). The tribunal observed that the counsel for the respondent was not able to state whether the recommendations had been accepted by the Government. It further proceeded to hold that the order dated 5th August, 1998 in O.A. No.1311/1988 was not a binding precedent, the same having been dismissed in limine. It relied on the decision in O.A.No.412/1994 by the Calcutta Bench of the tribunal decided on 23rd March, 1998 holding that the same is applicable to the case at hand. 5. Following the said decision, the tribunal directed to extend the benefit of pay-scale of Rs.3700-5700 (revised Rs.12000-18000) to the applicant from the same date as given to the rank of Head of Department along with arrears provided he fulfills the essential qualifications prescribed for the post of Head of the Department (Lecturer and Selection grade) as prescribed by the letter-circular dated September 20, 1989. 7. We have heard Mrs.Avnish Ahlawat, learned counsel for the petitioner. There has been no appearance on behalf of the respondents. 8. It is urged by Mrs.Avnish Ahlawat, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the AICTE is silent about the salary structure of Workshop Superintendent, qualifications for the post of Head of the Department which is higher than the post of Workshop Superintendent and the recommendations of Madan Committee and the AICTE are not mandatory. It is her further submission that the Government/Union territories are to decide the pay-scale taking into consideration the l