WP (C) 1050 of 2010 Page 1 of 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (C.) No.1050/2010 % Date of Decision: 19.02.2010 Union of India …. Petitioner Through Kumar Rajesh Singh, Advocate Versus Shri Lal Singh …. 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 petitioners Union of India through the General Manager, North Central Railway and Anr. has challenged the order dated 14th September, 2009 passed in OA No. 2049/2008 titled as Lal Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors., by the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby the original application filed by the respondent was allowed and the petitioners were directed to issue orders of pay fixation as per financial up-gradation granted to the respondent and to ensure payment of arrears to him. The petitioners were also directed to re-fix his retiral dues as the respondent has retired from 31st July, 2006. WP (C) 1050 of 2010 Page 2 of 5 The respondent was aggrieved on account of not granting benefits under Assured Career Progression Scheme even though according to the respondent orders were issued in the case of other employees granting similar benefit as claimed by the respondent which were extended to other persons but declined to the respondent. The respondent was appointed in 1972 as a Gangman (a Group ‘D’ post) and as a storeman in 1986. The respondent contended that as a storeman he was entitled for the benefit of financial up-gradation under the ACP Scheme from the scale of 2650-4000 to that of 3050- 4590 and in support of his plea, he relied on an office order dated 16th March, 2005, which was issued in respect of some other employees of Allahabad Division. The respondent also claimed financial up-gradation under the ACP Scheme on the ground that a written examination was scheduled on 10th December, 2005 for storeman under the consideration zone and the respondent along with similarly other eligible storemen had appeared in the examination and the other similarly situated persons was granted benefit of financial up-gradation. The petition was contested by the petitioners contending inter- alia that the order dated 16th March, 2005 relied on by the respondent was not relevant for the purpose of respondent and that no post of WP (C) 1050 of 2010 Page 3 of 5 storeman existed in Civil Engineering Department of Allahabad Division. The petitioners also contended that the substantive post of the respondent was of Gangman (Group-D category post) and consequently, the respondent was not eligible for grant of financial up- gradation and the orders relied on by the respondents were issued on account of administrative errors. Petitioners also contended that claim of up-gradation from 2650- 4000 to 3050-4590 is also not tenable as it involves jump of two grades whereas under the ACP Scheme up-gradation only by one grade is contemplated. The Tribunal had ordered production of service book of the respondent. From the service book, it was inferred that in 1985, the respondent was working as a storeman on officiating basis, however, he was regularised subsequently as his service book contained an entry that he had cleared a written test and had declared fit for the post of Storeman vide an order dated 15th January, 1986. Consequently, it was held that the respondent was holding the post of storeman in substantive capacity. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to disclose any cogent ground against the findings of the Tribunal, based on the service book of the respondent. WP (C) 1050 of 2010 Page 4 of 5 From mere allegation of the petitioners that respondent was merely working on work charged post, in absence of any other plea or document contrary to the service book of the respondent, cannot be accepted. The petitioners’ case is not that the entries made in the service book of the respondent are not correct or manipulated by him. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to differ with the findings of the Tribunal. On the basis of the service book, the Tribunal also inferred that the respondent was given up-gradation to the grade of 3050-4590 along with other similarly situated persons. The orders dated 18th August, 2006 pertaining to the respondent and order dated 22nd August, 2006 with regard to 12 other persons also justify the same and consequently the respondent was given financial up-gradation on the scale of 3050-4590. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the respondent had to be given financial up-gradation to the scale of Rs. 3050-45490 w.e.f. 1st October, 1999 cannot be interfered with. The plea of the petitioner that the grade of 3050-4590 is two grades higher than 2650-4000 is also negated on the ground that if this grade was given on account of an error, the same should have been rectified by any subsequent order and as no rectification order has ever WP (C) 1050 of 2010 Page 5 of 5 been issued nor produced before the Tribunal, this plea also cannot be accepted nor it can be held that that the grade was given on account of any error. The learned counsel for the petitioners is also unable to show that the grade is on account of any error. In the facts and circumstances it cannot be held that the Tribunal has committed an error in not accepting such a plea of the petitioners. In the circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The petitioners have failed to show any such illegality and irregularity which would require interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. ANIL KUMAR, J. FEBRUARY 19, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J. ‘rs’