W.P.(C) No.8874/2009 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision :15th July, 2010 + W.P.(C) 8874/2009 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.V.K.Tandon, Advocate. versus SHRI DEV SHARMA ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Sanjay Abbot, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral) 1. The facts are not in dispute. So let them be stated as the agreed facts. 2. Since 23.12.1980, Dev Sharma stood appointed as a Care Taker in the Department of Social Welfare and served the department fairly well evidenced by the fact that never ever was he issued a memorandum or a charge-sheet alleging misconduct. 3. His service is governed by the Delhi Administration Subordinate Service Rules 1967, Rule 6 whereof made him eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of LDC/Grade- IV (DASS) in the year 1995 inasmuch as he has the requisite educational qualification, being a matriculate. 4. Whereas, vide order dated 13.12.1995 persons junior to Dev Sharma were promoted as Grade-IV (DASS)/LDC, Dev Sharma was overlooked for the reason his personal file could not W.P.(C) No.8874/2009 Page 2 of 4 be located. From time to time thereafter persons junior to Dev Sharma were promoted and his claim was overlooked for the reason his personal file could not be located. He made a representation in the year 2005 pointing out aforesaid facts and claims that all these years he met his superior officers and verbally communicated the injustice done to him; for which there is no proof. 5. The poor man was constrained to file OA No.1658/2006 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, where, noting the aforesaid facts the Tribunal directed the petitioner to forthwith consider Dev Sharma’s case for promotion and if promoted, the date of effect would be when persons junior to him were promoted and in such situation Dev Sharma would be considered for grant of consequential benefits. These directions were issued not only on account of the afore-noted admitted facts but even the fact that the petitioner informed the Tribunal that it was actively considering the candidature of Dev Sharma for promotion. 6. Thereafter, the petitioner promoted Dev Sharma with effect from 26.10.2006 and this led Dev Sharma to file OA No.104/2008 praying that since his immediate junior was promoted on 31.12.1995, he should be promoted from said date and if not from said date, at least from 21.6.2002 when the next set of promotions were made. 7. Noting that Dev Sharma had made a representation only in the year 2005 and the fact that if not from 31.12.1995, undisputably his claim for promotion was overlooked with effect from 21.6.2002, the Tribunal has passed the following directions:- “5. Having said so, the question that still arises is as to whether what relief can be given to the applicant in the context of the fact that even though, the relief claimed by him would not be barred by limitation, the applicant had nonetheless woken up after a long W.P.(C) No.8874/2009 Page 3 of 4 slumber and made a representation for the first time about a year or so before his date of superannuation. Interests of parties, in this situation, in our view, have to be balanced. We are of the considered view that it would be fair and equitable if under the circumstances as mentioned above the applicant is notionally promoted from 21.6.2002 when persons junior to him were promoted with all consequential benefits, but for wages of the promoted post. Insofar as, the back wages are concerned, the applicant would be entitled to the same on the promotional post with effect from the date he made his representation in 2005. The arrears on that count be calculated and made over to the applicant within three months from today. The respondents would calculate the post-retiral benefits of the applicant as if he was promoted to the post of Grade-IV (DASS)/LDC w.e.f. 21.6.2002 and made over the arrears on that count within the same period.” 8. Indeed, in view of the facts noted above, the findings returned by the Tribunal cannot be found wanting in law or on facts. For the reason, Dev Sharma made a belated representation, back wages have been denied to him for the period prior to when he made the representation. But for the reason his entitlement for promotion was admittedly overlooked with effect from 21.6.2002, (it be noted that the Tribunal has recorded that Dev Sharma has given up claim for promotion with effect from 1995 and has restricted the right with effect from 21.6.2002) he has been directed to be promoted notionally from said date and the result is that Dev Sharma would be entitled to the benefit of the grade in question with effect from 21.6.2002 but no arrears would be paid to him from said date till the date he made the representation in the year 2005. 9. That the claim of Dev Sharma was overlooked when persons junior to him were promoted on 21.6.2002 is not in dispute. The only issue urged is the effect of Dev Sharma belatedly raising the issue in the year 2005. 10. We find that the Tribunal has well adjusted the equities between the parties and the same requires no W.P.(C) No.8874/2009 Page 4 of 4 interference under writ jurisdiction. 11. The writ petition is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.5,000/- against the petitioner and in favour of Dev Sharma. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. MOOL CHAND GARG, J. JULY 15, 2010 dk