Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIPIN SANGHI, A.K. CHAWLA, JJ.
National Institute of Public Co-Operation & Child Development & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
Darshan & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 3081, 4794 of 2015 & C.M. No. 5515, 8666 of 2015
Decided On : 16-01-2019
merger - seniority dispute - [Recruitment Rules, 2003, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985] - The court discussed the merger of the post of Documentation Attendant with the post of Library Attendant, the seniority dispute, and the entitlement to carry past service with the merger. The court highlighted the public interest aspect of the merger and its permanent and structural nature, leading to the conclusion that the respondent was entitled to carry her seniority with her when the two posts were merged.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a seniority dispute arising from the merger of the post of Documentation Attendant with the post of Library Attendant in a public organization. The respondent sought seniority based on her past service as Documentation Attendant, leading to a legal battle over the entitlement to carry past service with the merger.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent was entitled to carry her seniority with her when the two posts were merged, as the merger was made in public interest and was a permanent and structural change. The court also held that the respondent's seniority should be fixed based on her length of service from the date of her initial appointment as Documentation Attendant.
Issues: The primary issue was the entitlement to carry past service with the merger of the posts of Documentation Attendant and Library Attendant, leading to a seniority dispute between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the merger of the posts was made in public interest and was a permanent and structural change, entitling the respondent to carry her seniority with her. The court also emphasized that the respondent's migration from the post of Documentation Attendant to the post of Library Attendant was not the basis for the merger, and therefore, she was entitled to the benefits of her past service.
Final Decision: The court directed the petitioner organization to re-fix the seniority of the respondent as Library Attendant by counting her past service in the post of Documentation Attendant and to grant her consequential benefits in accordance with the rules/law.
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
1. These are two writ petitions preferred by the petitioner National Institute of Public Co-operation & Child Development (NIPCCD) [W.P.(C.) No.3081/2015], and the petitioner Hansraj [W.P.(C.) No.4794/2015], to assail the same order of the Tribunal rendered in O.A. No.1220/2013 on 09.10.2014. The petitioner Hansraj was arrayed as respondent No.3, whereas the petitioners in W.P.(C.) No.3081/2015 were arrayed as respondents No.1 & 2 in the said Original Application. Respondent No.1 herein has preferred the said Original Application.
2. A brief history may now be narrated which is relevant to understand the dispute.
3. In the petitioner organization, there was one post of Library Attendant, which was a feeder cadre for the next promotional post of Technical Assistant (Library). The posts of Technical Assistant (Library) are to be filled to the extent of 75% by Direct Recruitment, and 25% by promotion. Another isolated post of Documentation Attendant was created in the petitioner organization. There is no dispute that the pay scale, qualifications and the nature of responsibilities handled by the Library Attendant and the Documentation Attendant were the same. However, since the post of Documentation Attendant was an isolated post–to which respondent No.1 Smt. Darshan was appointed on 22.04.1993, she represented to the petitioner organization about her concerns regarding stagnation. She represented to the NIPCCD for providing for promotional avenues to the Documentation Attendants. The Executive Council of the petitioner organization considered the said aspect in its meeting held on 31.03.2003 and resolved as follows:
“The Institute has one post of Documentation Attendant and one post of Library Attendant in the scale of pay of Rs.3050-4590. The job responsibility and essential qualification and experience as per respective Recruitment Rules for both the posts are same. A copy each of the Recruitment Rules is at Annexure-N & O. The post of Library Attendant is the feeder cadre for the post of Technical Assistant (Library) in the scale of pay of Rs.4500-7000 and as such the incumbent to the post has adequate promotional channel. However, though the job responsibility and essential qualification and experience for the post of Documentation Attendant are same to those of Library Attendant the incumbent to the post does not have any promotional channel.
2. Therefore, in order to provide promotion avenues and to do natural justice with the incumbent holding the post of Documentation Attendant it is proposed to merge the post of Documentation Attendant with the post of Library Attendant in the scale of pay of Rs.3050-4590. The merger of the posts does not have any financial implication.”
(emphasis supplied)
4. Consequently, an office order was issued on 15.09.2003 bearing Office Order No.223/03 by the petitioner organization, merging the post of Documentation Attendant with the post of Library Attendant. The said office order, insofar as it is relevant, reads as follows:
“OFFICE ORDER No.223/03
Consequent upon the approval of the Executive Council in its 52nd meeting held on 31.3.2003, the post of Documentation Attendant is hereby merged with the post of Library Attendant in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590. This merger will have no financial implication on the Institute.
2. The above merger will be effective immediately and there will be a cadre of Library Attendant only. The incumbent holding the post of Documentation Attendant will now be called “Library Attendant”
3. This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority.”
(emphasis supplied)
5. It appears that post the said merger, no seniority list was circulated, and in a short span of about 3 months, petitioner/Hansraj was promoted on regular basis to the post of Technical Assistant (Library) on 03.12.2003.
6. Respondent No.1 then started representing for fixation of her seniority by counting her service as Documentation Attendant since 22.04.1993. She repeatedly re
AI
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
