AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.M. Joseph, C.J
This Special Appeal, though it came for admission, on agreement, it was taken up for final hearing.
Appellants are respondent nos. 2 to 4 in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed seeking the following reliefs:
“I. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Office Memorandum dated 14.12.2006 (Annexure 24 to the writ petition)
as well as the Office letter dated 11.1.2003 whereby the petitioner’s designation was re-designated as an
Assistant (Annexure 15 to the writ petition).
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the office letter dated 23.05.2007 issued by the Assistant Registrar (Annexure-26
to the writ petition).
III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondents to grant the benefit of the promotional pay scale on the
basis of the scale of Rs. 8000-13500 w.e.f. 1.4.1996 with a designation of E&M Supervisor with all other future consequential benefits with
designation after re-fixation of the scale of the petitioner from Rs. 7500-12000 to Rs. 800013500 after taking into consideration the report of the
committee constituted under the Chairmanship of Dr. B.S. Mathur dated 5.12.2001 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition).
IV. Issue any suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper on the basis of the facts and circumstances of
the case.Â
V. Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner.â€
An advertisement came to be issued on 7.9.1981. The advertisement related to two posts, namely, post of Junior Engineer in Electrical and Hostel
Supervisorâ€"cum-Care Taker. The writ petitioner, it appears, applied for the post of Hostel Supervisorâ€" cum-Care Taker. He came to be appointed
on 24.02.1982. Thereafter, after two years, he made a representation on 07.09.1984. The request in the representation was to change the designation
of his post to the post of Junior Engineer. This was followed by yet another representation in the year 1995 to change his post of Junior
Engineer/E&M Supervisor. The Head of Department made a recommendation. Thereafter, it appears that a Committee headed by one Professor
B.S. Mathur came to be constituted. Professor Mathur made a recommendation on 05.12.2001 in favour of the writ petitioner. The recommendation
was as follows:
“(6) Remarks:
The Committee recommends for the sympathetic consideration of the following points:
(6.1) The I.P.T administration has pleaded that the post of ‘Hostel Supervisor-cumCaretaker’ be converted/ renamed as ‘E&M
Supervisor’ as the nature of duties and prescribed qualifications are the same.
If approved in principle, the time scale promotions for E&M Supervisor at I.P.T will be the same as for this post on the main campus.â€
Thereafter, we notice that Annexure 12 dated 06.06.2002 is referred to, which is actually a mapping report submitted by the Registry. (Be it noted
that originally, the appellant which is an IIT, was a University of Roorkee and became an IIT in the year 2001). By Office Memo dated 11.01.2003
(Annexure 15), the writ petitioner’s designation was shown as Assistant. The writ petitioner made reference to Annexure Nos. 18 and 19 letters
dated 20.04.2004 and 26.02.2004. Thereafter, he made a representation (Annexure 20) dated 07.04.2005. There is a submission that a notice
(Annexure 24) dated 14.12.2006 was issued, wherein the writ petitioner was found entitled to the pay of the senior superintendent under the
upgradation scheme. Annexure 26 is letter dated  23.05.2007, which reads as under:
                  Þla[;k laLFkkiu ¼c½@5176@lh&190fnukad ebZ 23] 2007
              foHkkxk/;{k
              dkxt izkS|ksfxdh foHkkx
              lgkjuiqj dSEil
Â
lwpuh; gS fd iwoZ :M+dh foâ€fo|ky; esa rRdkyhu mRrj iznsâ€k “kklu ds “kkluknsâ€k la[;k Va-Aa-1-1763/Dus 39(M)/8 fnukad 3-6-89 esa
izkof/kfur p;u ors ueku dks ykxw djus gsrq izks0 ch0,l0 ekFkqj dh v/;{krk esa ,d lfefr dk xBu fd;k x;k FkkA lfefr us “kkluknsâ€k dh /kkjk 9 o 10 ds
vuqlkj foLr`r v/;;u djus ds ckn ,d fjiksVZ izLrqr dh Fkh ftls izkf/kd`r vf/kdkjh }kjk vuqeksfnr dj fn;k x;k Fkk rFkk mlh ds vuqlkj p;u osruekuksa dh
lqfo/kk nksuksa ifjljksa ds deZpkfj;ksa dks vuqeU; dh tkrh jgh gSAÂ
vkidh laLrqfr ij Jh ch0,e0 “kekZ dk izdj.k iqu% bl gsrq xfBr lfefr dks izsf’kr fd;k x;k rFkk lfefr us bl lanHkZ esa fuEu izdkj viuh laLrqfr dh
gSAÂ
“Sri B.M. Sharma is working as a Hostel Supervisorcum-Care Taker at DPT. No such post exists at the Roorkee Campus where Hostel
Supervisors as well Caretakers are posted from out of Group-C Ministerial employees. His case has been compared with that of Assistant Supdt. at
Roorkee Campus. The pay scale offered to and accepted by Sri B.M. Sharma does not merit any upward revision.â€
vr% vkils vuqjks/k gS fd lacaf/kr deZpkjh dks mijksDr ls voxr djkus dk d’V djsaA
                                                     ¼lqjsUnz
dqekj lSuh½
Lkgk;d dqylfpoß
Petitioner is challenging Annexures 15, 24 and 26. Besides that, he is also seeking the benefit of promotional scheme with a designation of E&M
Supervisor with all benefits relying on Prof. B.S. Mathur Committee report.
After exchange of pleadings, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition on 19.03.2018, by the following judgment:
“The petitioner has sought conversion of the post of Hostel Supervisor cum Care taker to the post of E & M Supervisor.
The employer constituted a High Powered Committee. The High Powered Committee recommended the case of the petitioner which is at the page
No. 58 of the paper book. However, despite that, the employer has not taken any decision.
The employer is directed to take final decision as per recommendation made by High Powered Committee on 05.12.2001, within 10 weeks from
today.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.â€
Feeling aggrieved the appellants are before us.Â
We heard Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. (Dr.) Udhyog Shukla, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the writ petitioner.
Learned counsel for the appellants would point out further that though Prof. B.S. Mathur Committee made a report and Director also approved it,
which was later found that the Director was not competent to grant the benefit of change of the designation, the notification as such was not issued.Â
The other developments in the form of further committees’ being constituted namely the Nigam and the Verma Committee, and the view taken by
Prof. Verma Committee were also brought to our notice.Â
Per contra, Dr. Udhyog Shukla, no doubt, would support the judgment, and he would, in fact, point out that under the Right to Information Act, an
information has been received, which shows that the claim of the appellants is not correct and, in fact, notification had been issued. Immediately, Mr.
Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants joins issue and submits that only a decision had been taken to issue the notification but it was not
issued.
We have noticed the nature of the contentions, which have been taken by the appellants by filing a counter affidavit, which in fact, has been filed,
wherein the details have been set out. We have also noticed the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The writ petitioner, in fact, sought to challenge
three orders, which according to him, were against him. Respondents’ counsel agrees that there is no reference to any of these documents. We
also notice, there is no reference in the judgment, in fact, to the case, which has been setup by the parties to the writ petition. It would appear that the
report of the Professor Verma Committee was not brought to the knowledge of the learned Single Judge during the course of argument.
In such circumstances, we would think that the interest of justice would be sub-served if we set aside the judgment of learned Single Judge dated
19.03.2018 and remit the matter back so that the matter be considered afresh with reference to the pleadings and the reliefs sought and the
contentions taken by the appellants and, thereafter, also the stand taken in the rejoinder. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed. Judgment of the learned
Single Judge is set aside. We remit the matter back. The case will stand listed before the learned Single Judge on 30.05.2018. We request the learned
Single Judge to dispose of the matter at the earliest having regard to the fact that the writ petition is of the year 2007. We make it clear that we have
not pronounced on the merits of the contentions. No order as to costs.
Â