W.P.(C) No.4379/2010

Page 1 of 9

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

W.P.(C) No.4379/2010

%

Date of Decision: 03.02.2011

Sudesh Kumari Sareen

…. Petitioner

Through Mr.Rajeev Saxena, Advocate.

Versus

Union of India & Ors

…. Respondents

Through Dr.Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate

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

ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 12^th March, 2010

passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in O.A

No.1513/2009 titled Smt.Sudesh Kumari Sareen v. Union of India

through Secretary, Ministry of Railways & Ors. holding that since the

petitioner was working on ad-hoc basis, therefore, during the period she

was working on ad-hoc basis, she is not entitled for counting that

period for grant of the benefits under the ACP Scheme and dismissing

her petition.

2011:DHC:651-DB

W.P.(C) No.4379/2010

Page 2 of 9

2. Brief facts to comprehend the disputes are that petitioner was

appointed as a staff nurse vide order No.225E/289-PE dated 28^th June,

1985 in the grade of Rs.425-640 and was posted at Jagadhari workshop

in place of Smt.Mohinder Kaur who had been transferred to Lucknow.

Her appointment notice categorically stipulated that her appointment as

a staff nurse is purely on adhoc basis and her services are liable to be

terminated as and when selected candidate would be available from the

Railway Service Commission or replaced by the regular staff from other

divisions under the orders of transfers. It was also stipulated that she

would not have any claim for regular appointment till such time she

would be selected by Railway Service Commission.

3. Later on pursuant to selection, the services of the petitioner were

regularized in terms of notice No.752K/SM/CH/95 dated 17^th June,

1995 with effect from 3^rd January, 1992. Her seniority position was also

fixed as staff nurse below Ms.Radhika (Scheduled Caste) placed at serial

number 58 and above Mrs.Sushma Phillips placed at serial number 59

in the seniority list dated 5^th May, 1994.

4. By a communication dated 31^st March, 2004 regarding financial

upgradation under the ACP Scheme a clarification was given deciding

that 50% of temporary status of the casual labour service on absorption

in regular employment would be taken into account towards minimum

requirement of service of 12/24 years for the grant of benefit under the

2011:DHC:651-DB

W.P.(C) No.4379/2010

Page 3 of 9

ACP Scheme on the analogy that the same is also reckoned as

qualifying service for pension. Another employee of the respondent

Sh.Aturah Rehman Khan‟s ad-hoc service with effect from 4^th August,

1982 to 25^th February, 1996 were considered and he was given first full

benefit with effect from 1^st October, 1999.

5. The petitioner was appointed as a staff nurse in the scale of

Rs.425-640/Rs.5000-8000 on ad-hoc basis on 1^st July, 1985 and

regularized on 3^rd January, 1992 and was promoted as Nursing Sister

(Rs.5500-9000/-) from 5^th March, 2001, therefore, she claimed that she

be given financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme by reckoning her

service from 1^st July, 1985 so that she becomes eligible for first

financial upgradation with effect from 1^st October, 1999, the date on

which ACP Scheme came into force. The request of the petitioner to

reckon her service from 1^st July, 1985 for granting the first upgradation

from 1^st October, 1999 was declined by letter dated 26^th June, 2008.

The order was passed in consultation with the Department of Personnel

and Training.

6. Aggrieved by the order of the respondent not reckoning her

services from the date of her appointment on ad-hoc basis that is 1^st

July, 1985, she sought the copies of notings in her case und