W.P. (C) 8245/2010 and W.P. (C) 7924/2010. Case: 1. Sunil Kumar Gupta, 2. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Vs 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., 2. Sunil Kumar Gupta & Anr.. Delhi High Court

Case Number:W.P. (C) 8245/2010 and W.P. (C) 7924/2010
Party Name:1. Sunil Kumar Gupta, 2. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Vs 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., 2. Sunil Kumar Gupta & Anr.
Counsel:For Appellant: Mr. Sanjiv Sharma, Adv., Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Standing Counsel, GNCTD with Mr. Abhijeet Kakoti, Adv. And For Respondents: Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Standing Counsel, GNCTD with Mr. Abhijeet Kakoti, Adv., Mr. Sanjiv Sharma, Adv., Mr. Baldev Malik, Adv.
Judges:Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
Issue:Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Section 19; Delhi Prisons Act, 2000 - Section 6; Right to Information Act
Judgement Date:November 16, 2011
Court:Delhi High Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Judgment:

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

  1. It is unfortunate that the petitioner who is a Law Officer in Tihar Jail and is defending the Jail Authorities in various legal cases has to knock the doors of courts to seek justice for himself, specially when the respondents appreciate and understand the plight of the petitioner and the unfair treatment which has been meted out to the petitioner in grant of pay scales as well as non-promotion and though the respondents themselves appreciated and recommended for not only providing proper promotional avenues but also suitable upgradation to the higher pay scales; however when it came to implementation thereof, the respondents utterly failed therein.

  2. The petitioner was appointed as Asstt. Supdt. in the Prison Department of the respondent no.1, Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 8th May, 1981. While the petitioner was working in the aforesaid capacity, the Government had set up Justice A.N. Mulla Committee on prison reforms. The said Committee submitted its report in March, 1983 making various recommendations for reforming the prisons. These recommendations included creation of post of Law Officer in a jail housing 750 prisoners and Dy. Director (Legal Affairs) at Prison Headquarters. Pursuant to the aforesaid recommendation, on 27th June, 1986 ad hoc post of Law Officer was created with pay scale of `2375-225-3500. However Recruitment Rules for this post were formulated. The petitioner, on 16th October, 1986 was promoted to the post of Dy. Supdt. Grade-II. The petitioner was appointed as Law Officer on ad hoc basis on 15th May, 1996. Vide order dated 14th May, 1997 his appointment as Law Officer was regularized w.e.f. 15th May, 1996 i.e. the date of which the petitioner was initially appointed as the Law Officer. He was given the pay scale of `7450-11500, the then pay scale of the said post. He was notionally promoted to the post of Dy. Supdt. Grade-I w.e.f. 23rd December, 1994, which was the regular cadre in which he initially joined the services in the Prison Department. This notional promotion was given to him up to 15th May, 1996 when he had joined as Law Officer.

  3. It will be demonstrated from the above that before the petitioner joined as Law Officer, in his erstwhile cadre he had got promoted from Asstt. Supdt. to Dy. Supdt. Grade II and thereafter Dy. Supdt. Grade-I. However after becoming Law Officer the petitioner stagnated. It is because of the reason that not only the post was created on ad hoc basis but there were no Recruitment Rules for the said post.

  4. The petitioner made representations for creating promotional avenues. These representations were forwarded with strong recommendation of the Director General (Prison) to the Home Department of the respondent no.1. The Addl. Secretary (Home) even recommended creation of one post of Chief Law Officer and five posts of Law Officer. The Prison Department had taken up the case with 6th Central Pay Commission as well for according financial upgradation to the post of Law Officer after 8 years and 13 years of service respectively in the absence of any promotional avenues. Such a recommendation was made even by the Chief Secretary. However, as pointed out above, notwithstanding these recommendations when it came to implementation, no such steps were taken to grant benefit in real terms to the petitioner herein. In these circumstances, after impatiently waiting for all these years and when the petitioner was not getting any cogent results he approached the Tribunal by filing an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. In this OA he made following prayers:-

    1. Quash and set aside the order dated 8.9.09 passed by Principal Secy. (Home), Govt. of NCT and order dated 16.9.09 passed by Director (Delhi), Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India.

    2. Direct the Respondents to grant the scale of `1000-15000 w.e.f. 15.5.2004 viz the date when the applicant completed 8 years of services as Law Officer in the pay scale of `7450-1150.

    3. Direct the Respondents to grant the next scale of `12000-16500 w.e.f. 15.4.09 viz. the date when the applicant completed 13 years of service as Law Officer in the pay scale of `7450-11500.

    4. Direct the Respondents to provide promotional avenues to the post of Law Officer on which the applicant has been working since 1996 on the same pattern as done in other States and in particular the State of Madhya Pradesh.

  5. This OA has been decided by the Tribunal vide impugned order dated 19th August, 2010. Though in the opening para of the impugned order the Tribunal has noted the relief which the petitioner claimed, while giving the directions in the last para, none of these prayers are taken care of except prayer 'a' which is allowed by the Tribunal quashing the order dated 8th September, 2009 passed by Principal Secretary (Home), Govt. of NCT of Delhi and order dated 16th September, 2009 passed by the Director (Delhi) Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India. Even while setting aside these orders the only direction which is given is to consider the claim of the petitioner for ACP as per the scheme and clarification in the appropriate pay scale in the hierarchy, as...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL