Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> High Court of Delhi Grant of pay-scale of the higher post would be justified only if the employee was actually performing duties of the higher post MANU/DE/2906/2017 - (25 Sep 2017) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">B.P. Singh and Ors. Vs. MCD and Ors.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">The present writ petition assails the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the Petitioner's transfer application. The Petitioners had filed a writ petition before this Court seeking the benefit of the higher pay scale of the post of School Inspector (General) from 3rd January, 1994 to 31st December, 2003. The petition was transferred to the Tribunal and vide impugned order, the Petitioners' claim has been rejected by the Tribunal. The question, thus, which needs to be addressed is, whether in view of the admitted fact that, from 3rd January, 1994, the Petitioners had not only been specifically appointed as Area Organisers but also specifically put to notice that, their salary would be in the pay scale of an Area Organiser, can they still claim the salary of a School Inspector (General), by contending that during relevant period, they were asked to discharge some duties of School Inspector, even when there is, admittedly, no order directing or authorising them to work as School Inspector. 
The Petitioners were appointed as Area Organizers in the year 1993, pursuant to the creation of 12 posts of Area Organisers in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/- for a specific project called 'Education for All', which was implemented by the Respondent-Corporation in collaboration with UNICEF, NCERT and Government of India. After the project ended in 1996, the Respondent after upgrading 12 posts of Assistant Teachers to the post of Area Organisers, issued fresh appointment letters in August, 1996 against which the Respondents continued to work as Area Organiser. Pertinently, the fresh appointment letters issued to the Respondents also clearly specified the post and pay scale of Area Organisers. 
It is an undisputed position that, while the Petitioners were continuing to work on the post of Area Organisers, the Respondent-Corporation had introduced a Mid-day-Meal (MDM) Scheme in 2003 for its primary schools, for which 16 new posts of School Inspector (Mid-day Meal) were created. It is also an admitted position that upon upgradation of 10 posts of Area Organisers to that of School Inspector (MDM), the Petitioners were - vide order, appointed as School Inspector (Mid-day Meal) in the pay scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500/- on deputation basis. 
The Petitioners also do not dispute the fact that, while their earlier writ petition seeking pay scale of School Inspector (General) from 3rd January, 1994 was pending adjudication, they had filed another writ petition before this Court, claiming that, their upgradation to the post of School Inspector (MDM) w.e.f. 19th December, 2003 ought to be on regular basis and not on deputation as done by Respondents. In this petition, they had also claimed the salary in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500/- from the date of their appointment as School Inspector (MDM) i.e. 19th December, 2003. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide its order, holding that, the Petitioners having worked as Area Organisers, could not claim the right to be treated as substantive School Inspector (General). The Court, however, directed the Respondents to finalise its policy for filling up the newly created 10 posts of School Inspector (MDM) and consider the Petitioners for the said posts by keeping in mind the duties discharged by them as substantive Assistant Teacher from 1993. This aforesaid judgment was implemented and upon notification of the Recruitment Rules for the post of School Inspector (Mid Day Meal), all the Petitioners were appointed as School Inspector (Mid Day Meal) on regular basis after giving them relaxation in educational qualifications. From 19th December, 2003, when the Petitioners were appointed as School Inspector (Mid Day Meal), initially on deputation basis and thereafter on regular basis, they were being paid the pay scale of School Inspector (Mid Day Meal). 
There was no document showing that, the Petitioners while working as Area Organiser were discharging the duties as School Inspector (General). Merely because some duties which are to be generally performed by School Inspectors (General) might have been performed by the Petitioners, who were working as Area Organiser, cannot be a ground to grant them the pay scale of a School Inspector (General). Merely because School Inspectors (General) were not allotted for the schools, where the Petitioners were working as Area Organisers, cannot be taken to conclude that, Area Organisers were working as School Inspector (General). It could imply was that keeping in view the nature of duties of Area Organisers, which were admittedly higher than that of Assistant Teachers, no requirement was felt by the Respondents to post School Inspectors (General) in respect of their schools. 
As per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary-Cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh v. Hari Om Sharma & Ors., and the decision of this Court in the case of Delhi Cantonment Board v. Smt. Raj Kumari Sachdeva & Ors., the grant of pay-scale of the higher post would be justified only if the employee was actually performing duties of the higher post. 
The posts of Area Organisers on which the Petitioners served till the year 2003, constituted a completely different cadre and post, from that of the School Inspectors (General). The post of Area Organiser was a Grade 'C' post, while the post of School Inspector was a Grade 'B' post. The Petitioners were upgraded w.e.f. 19th December, 2003 from Area Organisers to School Inspector (MDM) which was a newly created post and there is no merit in their claim that, they had been discharging duties of School Inspector (General) from 3rd January, 1994 itself. High Court is of the view that, there is nothing to substantiate the claim of the Petitioners that, they were ever asked to discharge the duties of School Inspector (General), or that they actually discharged the duties of School Inspector (General). Mere overlapping of some duties of Area Organiser and School Inspector (General) cannot lead to the conclusion that, the Petitioners as Area Organisers, were performing the duties of School Inspector (General). The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Relevant : Secretary-Cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh v. Hari Om Sharma & Ors., <manuid>MANU/SC/1091/1998</manuid>: V(1998) SLT 1, Delhi Cantonment Board v. Smt. Raj Kumari Sachdeva & Ors., <manuid>MANU/DE/0165/2014</manuid> : 2014 X AD (Delhi) 198</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Pay-scale, Benefit, Grant</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>