P&H HC: Offence u/s 295A won’t be Attracted if Act done Without Malicious Intent  ||  Ker. HC: No Liability on RTO to Pay Compensation if Vehicle Owner Fails to get it Insured  ||  Guj. HC: Elected Members Must Not Disrepute the Institution to Which they are Elected  ||  All. HC: Scheme of A&C Act Put no Limitation for Application of Doctrine of Severability to an Award  ||  Kar. HC: Apprehension of Not Getting a Fair Trial is Required to Seek Transfer of Case  ||  Ker. HC: Not Granting Divorce Despite Mutual Consent Amounts to Cruelty  ||  Tel. HC: Elders in the House Can’t Decide Custody of Child  ||  All. HC: Gravity of Misconduct and Past Conduct Relevant to be Considered by Disciplinary Authority  ||  P&H HC Issues Guidelines on Proclamation u/s 82 CrPC  ||  SC: Can File Complaint Under Repealed FERA Provisions During Sunset Period After Enforcement of FEMA    

Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Vs. Vandana Panwar - (High Court of Delhi) (13 Jul 2018)

Where salary of junior is higher than that of senior, senior is also entitled to fixation of salary at par with her junior

MANU/DE/2472/2018

Service

The Petitioner, Department of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi, is aggrieved by the judgment, passed by the Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi allowing application, filed by the Respondent for quashing and setting aside the memorandum dated 18th June, 2015, whereunder, her application for implementation of the increment payable to her from July, 2008 was turned down by the competent authority on the ground that she did not fulfil the requirement of 6 months qualifying period for earning an increment, as on 1st July, 2008. Further, the Respondent had sought directions to the Petitioner to step up her pay at par with that of her junior, Ms. Mamta Meena w.e.f. 1st July, 2008, by granting her an increment payable to her w.e.f. the said date.

The High Court is of the opinion that, the view expressed by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment to the effect that where the salary of the junior is higher than that of the senior, the senior is also entitled to fixation of salary at par with her junior, is a logical conclusion backed by several decisions of the Supreme Court and High Court on the aforesaid aspect. In any case, the Respondent cannot be held responsible for the delay in verification of her age as she had taken all necessary steps to submit the requisite documents to the Petitioner in time.

It is only fortuitous that, the documents of Ms. Mamta Meena were got verified earlier due to which a letter of appointment was issued to her on 7/8th November, 2007, whereas it took some time to verify the documents submitted by the respondent and resultantly, the letter of appointment was issued to her on 4th March, 2008. The Respondent cannot be held responsible for the said delay. Further, in the seniority list drawn by the Petitioner, the Respondent's seniority has been fixed over and above that of Ms. Mamta Meena. This being the position, the Respondent was justified in claiming that, she is entitled to stepping of pay at par with that of her junior. The impugned judgment is affirmed and the petition is dismissed.

Tags : INCREMENT   GRANT   VALIDITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2023 - All Rights Reserved