Back
2010 (3) Supreme 35
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MARKANDEY KATJU and T.S. THAKUR,JJ.
Bindu Sehgal — Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. — Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5995 OF 2004
Decided on : 8-04-2010
Facts of the Case :
Present Appeal has been filed against order passed by High Court whereby writ petition filed by appellant for a writ of mandamus directing grant of financial upgradation to her in terms of the Assured Career Progression (ACP) had been dismissed.
Findings of the Court :
Appellant was selected and appointed to post of Hindi Officer in Border Road Development Board, under Department of Surface Transport, Ministry of Transport. Appellant’s case that persons similarly situated and possessing similar educational qualification in her department and possessing similar educational qualifications as the appellant had been promoted as Senior Hindi Officers/Varisth Hindi Adhikharis after putting in a service of just about 8 years and some of them had even been promoted to the post of Joint Director while the appellant continued to stagnate as a Hindi Officer in her department. Held order passed by High Court did not, satisfactorily deal with the questions that arose for consideration in the writ petition filed by the appellant.Was the appellant directly recruited against the post of Hindi Officer. If so, could she be denied the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme on account of fact that she had, before her recruitment, held the post of a Lower Division Clerk and had been given two promotions or on account of the fact that she had been granted the benefit of her past service. In case the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme could not be denied to the appellant, was the post held by the appellant an isolated post within the meaning of the Assured Career Progression Scheme?.Whether persons similarly situated as the appellant and holding analogous posts in other Departments were enjoying higher pay-scales. If so, whether the appellant could claim financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme by reference to the said higher pay-scales?.Since Answer to said questions holds the key to the grant or refusal of the relief claimed by the appellant in writ petition filed by her. Hence Matter was remitted back to High Court for proper determination of the matters in controversy afresh in accordance with law .Appeal was allowed
JUDGMENT
T.S. THAKUR, J.
1. This appeal by special leave calls in question the correctness of an order passed by the High Court of Delhi whereby C.W.P. No.586 of 2001 filed by the appellant for a writ of mandamus directing grant of financial upgradation to her in terms of the Assured Career Progression (ACP) has been dismissed.
2. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Union Public Service Commission inviting applications from eligible candidates for direct recruitment to the post of Hindi Officer in the Border Road Development Board, under the Department of Surface Transport, Ministry of Transport, the appellant was selected and appointed against the said post in September, 1986, and confirmed against the same w.e.f. 23rd October, 1988. The appellant’s case is that persons similarly situated and possessing similar educational qualifications as the appellant who had been recruited through the U.P.S.C. in the year 1986 and allocated to Central Secretariat Official Language Service had been promoted as Senior Hindi Officers/Varisth Hindi Adhikharis after putting in a service of just about 8 years. Some of them had even been promoted to the post of Joint Director while the appellant continued to stagnate as a Hindi Officer in her department. A representation made by the appellant for grant of promotion appears to have been considered in consultation with the Ministry of Defence (Finance), but the appellant was advised to await the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission. A work study was also ordered although no such study, according to the appellant, was conducted.
3. The appellant’s further case is that even when the Parliamentary Committee on Official language and the Central Hindi Implementation Committee headed by the Prime Minister have time and again recommended that a separate cadre be formed for providing promotional avenues to Hindi Officers working in subordinate offices in various Ministries and undertakings and although the said recommendations were accepted with the modification that cadres be formed wherever the same were feasible yet the same were ignored by the Border Road Organization, who remained content with the introduction of what is known as ACP Scheme. The scheme, according to the appellant, envisages two financial upgradations the first falling due after completion of 12 and the second after 24 years of regular service in cases of acute stagnation. It is not in dispute that the scheme was made applicable in the case of directly recruited “B” Group Hindi Officers also.
4. Pursuant to the introduction of the scheme aforementioned, the appellant submitted three representations seeking financial upgradation to the pay scale of Rs.10000-15200 in terms of the existing hierarchy prevailing in the Ministry of Defence and in the Department of Official Language (Ministry of Home Affairs). These representations were considered but instead of granting, what according to the appellant was legitimately due to her under the scheme, she was given the pay scale of Rs.8000- 13500 admissible to those working as Assistant Executive Engineers in the BRO.
5. Aggrieved by denial of the higher grade of Rs.10000- 15200 being enjoyed by similarly situated Hindi Officers working in other Departments, the appellant approached the High Court for redressal of her grievance, which writ petition has been dismissed holding that the grant of higher pay scale of Rs.10000-15200 claimed by the appellant was likely to create anomalies in the departmental hierarchy. The High Court was also of the view that the appellant was not entitled to the scale of pay admissible to senior officers of any particular Ministry or Department as that was not the intent and object of the ACP Scheme. She could not, observed the High Court, be allowed to steal a march over persons placed in analogous pay scales in her department.
6. Appearing for the appellant Mrs. Shally Bhasin Maheshwari, strenuously argued that the High Court had failed to corre
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
