W. P. (C.) No. 230 of 2010 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (C.) No.230/2010 % Date of Decision: 14.01.2010 Sh.Ram Raj Sethi …. Petitioners Through Mr.Brij Bhushan Gupta and Mr.Ankit Jain, Advocates. Versus NDMC …. Respondent Through Nemo. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO ANIL KUMAR, J. * The petitioner has challenged the order dated 23rd March, 2009 in T.A No.349/2009 titled Sh.Ram Raj Sethi v. New Delhi Municipal Council dismissing his petition against the order dated 11th November, 2003 whereby consequent upon withdrawal of time bound promotional scale granted to the petitioner from 18th May, 1994 and his pay was re- fixed from 1st May, 1994 and consequent thereto office order dated 20th December, 1999 had been withdrawn. W. P. (C.) No. 230 of 2010 Page 2 of 3 The petitioner was employed as Latheman from 18th May, 1976 and was appointed as Turner on 13th July, 1981. After he passed a trade test for promotion to the category of machine man he was promoted as machine man on 21st May, 1991 and again after qualifying a trade test he was appointed as a foreman from 1st April, 1998. In 1999 he was generally informed regarding proposal for extension of time bound promotional scale under which all the employees were entitled for first time bound promotional scale on completion of 10 years regular service. Under the said scheme second time bound promotional scale was to be given on completion of further eight years of service. The scales so admissible were the next available higher scale in the channel of promotion. Under the scheme erroneously time bound promotions were given to everyone including petitioner irrespective of having obtained the promotions by some of the employees. Time bound promotion was applicable to an employee only after 10 years of promotion. The petitioner had got the promotion in 1998 and he was entitled for promotion only after 10 years, however, he had been granted promotion erroneously which had been rectified by the Corporation by order dated 11th November, 2003. The Tribunal has noted the object of scheme which did not entitle every employee to get promotion and the plea of the petitioner that basic W. P. (C.) No. 230 of 2010 Page 3 of 3 intention of the scheme was to give time bound promotion without reference to actual promotion was repelled. For considering the time bound promotion, the promotion already granted to an employee is material and has to be considered. From the perusal of the scheme it is apparent that it was never intended to confer grades to employees notwithstanding that in the meanwhile they had been getting promotions. The petitioner had obtained promotion as machine man on 21st May, 1991 and, therefore, he would have become entitled to first time bound promotion scale from 21st May, 2001 and not earlier. The petitioner before 21st May, 2001 also passed the trade test and was promoted to Foreman on 1st April, 1998 and, therefore, he could not avail additional entitlement for promotion and his promotion could be only after 10 years after 1st April, 1998. In the circumstances, there is no illegality or irregularity in the order of the Tribunal which will require any interference by this Court. The writ petition in the facts and circumstances is without any merit and it is, therefore, dismissed. ANIL KUMAR, J. JANUARY 14, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J. ‘k’