O.A. No. 620/2010. Case: 1. Jagdish Singh S/o Kanhiya Lal, 2. Chand Ram S/o Sri Chand, 3. Kartar Singh S/o Daya Nand, 4. Ram Kishan S/o Rai Singh, 5. Ram Charan Saini S/o Pirbhu Ram Saini, 6. Mukhtiar Singh S/o Sri Chand, 7. Ranbir Singh S/o Shardha Nanad, 8. Om Prakash S/o Mir Singh, 9. Ved Prakash S/o Inderman, 10. Ashok Kumar S/o Bani Singh Vs 1. Government of (NCT of Delhi), Through Chief Secretary, 2. Chief Engineer, Irrigation and Flood Control Dept, Government of (NCT of Delhi), 3. Superintending Enginner, Flood Circle-IV, Basaidarapur, Government of (NCT of Delhi), 4. Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | O.A. No. 620/2010 |
| Counsel | Yogesh Sharma, Rishi Prakash |
| Judges | Shanker Raju (Judicial Member) & Dr. Veena Chhotray (Accountant Member), JJ. |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Judgement Date | August 02, 2010 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Judgment:
Shanker Raju (Judicial Member), J., (Principal Bench New Delhi)
-
Heard the parties.
-
It is an unfortunate case where directions issued to the Government of India, i.e., Department of Personnel and Training have been complied with by a very subordinate officer of Irrigation and Flood Control Department, viz. Superintending Engineer (Flood), Circle-IV.
-
A brief backdrop suggests that the applicants who are work-charged tubewell/pump operators have come before us in two proceedings earlier, in one of which, i.e., OA No.930/2007, decided on 20.03.2009 directions have been issued to the respondent No.1, i.e., DoP & T to consider the prayer of applicants for grant of 1st financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme in the pay scale of Rs.4000-8000 and during the discussion OA-171/2001, which is alleged to have been dismissed on the identical issue, the contention was repelled by the Court on the ground that there is no issue of ACP benefits in that OA.
-
Insofar as clarification No.32 is concerned, it is observed by the Tribunal that there are recruitment rules for the work-charged category and there being no objection to ACP benefits to applicants as holders of isolated posts but the same is not borne out by the Rules and that doubt No.32 of DoP & T Scheme dated 10.2.2000 would apply and in such view of the matter, having regard to doubt No.44 providing extension also to incumbent of isolated posts in the pay scale of similar posts in the same Ministry directions were issued. An order passed on 1.3.2009 when rejected the claim of applicant led to filing of CP-441/2009, which was disposed of on 1.12.2009 giving liberty to the applicant to assail this order specifically on the ground that whereas directions were issued to DoP & T to consider the claim, rather respondent No.3, Superintending Engineer rejected the claim.
-
Learned counsel of applicants now vehemently contends that an incompent authority has disposed of the Tribunal direction by passing an order, which runs on the face of the Tribunal's order, whereby a contradictory finding has been recorded, which is at variance with the finding recorded by the Tribunal. It is further contended that in the matter of application of recruitment rules though work-charged employees are governed by a set of rules the issue as to entitlement of ACP, which cannot be denied to work-charged employees has since been clarified makes no distinction between the regular and work-charged employees...
To continue reading
Request your trial