HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
CM No. 18301/2012 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 7071/2012
1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking reliefs as under:-
(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents to produce the service records of the petitioner as well as records pertaining to order No.D/798/DY.-Dir(Admn.)/2012 dated 7th August, 2012 issued by the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (erstwhile Slum & JJ Department of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi).
(b) Quash and set aside order No. D/798/DY.- Dir(Admn.)/2012 dated 7th August, 2012 issued by the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board(Respondent No.2).
(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondent No.2 to designate the petitioner to the post of Dy. Commissioner with effect from 30.07.1994 i.e. the date she was given the selection grade of Rs.14300-18300/- and
(d) Thereafter to the post of Addl. Commissioner in the pay scale of Rs.18400-22400 after the completion of 3 years of service in the grade of 14300-18300 which she rendered w.e.f. 1994.
(e) In the alternate to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to the Respondent No.2 to upgrade a post of Director as Dy. Commissioner (S&JJ) in the pay scale of Rs.14300-18300 w.e.f. 1994 personal to the petitioner and thereafter grant her the pay scale of Rs.18400-22400/- w.e.f. 31.7.1997 when the petitioner completed 3 years of regular service in the pay scale of Rs.14300-18300.
(f) On grant of prayers as above, to direct the Respondent No.2 to grant all consequential benefits as per law including re-fixing of pension etc.”
2. The petitioner joined the services, of the erstwhile Slum & JJ Department of Delhi Development Authority presently known as the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, as an Urban Economist/Dy. Director.
3. In the year 1984, the petitioner was promoted as Joint Director in the pay scale of Rs.10000-15200 /-(pre-revised).
4. On 10.11.1989, while on deputation with the Punjab Women & Children Development Welfare Corporation, she was promoted as a Director in the pay scale of Rs.12000-16500/- (pre-revised) by the slum wing of DDA.
5. Vide order dated 26.08.1992, the Slum & JJ Department in DDA was transferred back to MCD w.e.f.1.9.1992 by the Ministry of Urban Development, Govt. of India. At that time there were two posts of Commissioners in Slum & JJ Department i.e. Commissioner-I and Commissioner-II.
6. In the year 1993, the petitioner proceeded on deputation to the Punjab Urban Development Authority, Chandigarh.
7. While she was on deputation, the Slum & JJ Department, MCD granted her Selection Grade i.e. the pay scale of Rs.14300-18300/- on 15.11.1999 with retrospective effect from 30.07.1994. However, she continued to be treated as Director.
8. Mr. P.P. Khurana, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that as a consequence of the order dated 15.11.1999, the petitioner had in her credit more than ten years of combined service in the pay scale of Rs.12000-16500/- and Rs.14300-18300/- (Selection Grade) and five years in the pay scale of Rs.14300-18300/-, which not only made her eligible for promotion as Commissioner as per the Recruitment Rules of DDA but also entitled her to the pay in the scale of Rs.18400-22400/-.
9. Learned senior counsel further submits that in so far as the Slum & JJ Department was concerned, in as much as there was only a single post of Dy. Commissioner, which was invariably filled up only on deputation basis from officers of the General Wing of the Corporation or from elsewhere, there were virtually no promotional avenues beyond the level of a Director resulted in stagnation.
10. He submits that the petitioner made various representations for claiming her promotion for the post of Commissioner, however, received no response.
11. Learned senior counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the Office Order dated 31.01.2002, which is annexed at page No. 43 as Annexure P-10, whereby the petitioner was absorbed in Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, Chandigarh as Additional Chief Administrator in the pay scale of Rs.18600-22100/- with effect from the date of her resignation i.e. 03.01.2002, subject to acceptance of her resignation in her parent department from 03.01.2002. Accordingly, her pay was to be fixed in the pay scale of Rs.18600-22100/- at the initial stage and her seniority shall be reckoned from the date of her absorption under Rules of the aforementioned department.
12. Admittedly, the petitioner came back to her parent department on 10.04.2008 and that too on the same post as Director in the pay scale of Rs.14300-18300/-. She continued on that scale since then and finally superannuated on 30.11.2010. During this period of more than 2 ½ years, she did not approach the Court. Moreover, 2 more years have elapsed after her retirement.
13. Additionally, vide communication dated 07.08.2012, the respondents conveyed to the petitioner that no junior to her had been promoted to the post of Dy. Commissioner and Addl. Commissioner (S&JJ) during her tenure of deputation.
14. It is further stated in the aforesaid communication that since the petitioner has been retired on superannuation on 30.11.2010, therefore, it is not feasible to consider such request at this belated stage.
15. Moreover, she resigned from the parent department and due to the change of the Government, she came back to her parent department and accepted the post of Director and even continued on the same post till she was superannuated.
16. Since it is the case of the respondents that no promotion as Dy. Commissioner and Additional Commissioner was given to anyone, therefore, the petitioner is not aggrieved with any of the orders passed by the respondents.
17. The case of the petitioner is that she was eligible as per the MCD and DDA Rules. But when the department has not given any promotion to any of the candidate, mere eligibility does not create a right of the petitioner to be promoted on a higher post. The petitioner has since retired and has approached the Court belatedly. Therefore, the instant petition suffers from delay and latches.
18. In view of the above discussion, the instant petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
SURESH KAIT, J.
NOVEMBER 07, 2012 Sb/RS