Dismissed

Bal Singh v. Govt of India and Ors.

Delhi HC9 May 2024W.P.(C)/4045/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought counting of his NATMO service for third ACP benefits after Tribunal rejected his claim. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that his draftsman post was not equivalent to Senior Cartographic Assistant due to lower pay scale, and held the nine-year-delayed claim could not revive an issue finalised in 1982. Petition dismissed as meritless.

What the court decided

AI extract

Bal Singh Vs Govt of India and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~34

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 4045/2023 BAL SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. B. S. Jarial, Advocate versus GOVT OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Nitinjya Chaudhary, SPC with Mr. Anukalp, GP and Mr. Raul Mourya, Advocate

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

¶5

O R D E R

¶6

% 09.05.2024

¶7

The present petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dated 09.01.2023 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (the learned Tribunal) in O.A. No. 1602/2017. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has rejected the petitioner’s case for counting his past service between 11.06.1973 to 05.07.1982 with National Atlas and Thematic Mapping Organization (NATMO) for grant of benefits under ACP/MACP Scheme by the respondent/Soil and Land Survey of India (SLUSI).

¶8

The petitioner had joined NATMO on 11.06.1973 as draftsman where he continued to serve till 05.07.1982, when he joined SLUSI as a Senior Cartographic Assistant after tendering his resignation to NATMO. While he was serving with SLUSI, the petitioner was granted the benefits of first ACP on 09.09.1999 and the benefits of second ACP w.e.f 05.07.2006. These benefits were granted to the petitioner by taking into account his service with SLUSI from 05.07.1982. No grievance regarding the counting of his past service was raised by him at that stage and he superannuated from

¶9

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/05/2024 at 11:29:22

¶10

service of SLUSI on 31.12.2008.

¶11

After the petitioner superannuated from service, he in the year 20112012 made representations to the respondents/SLUSI with a prayer that his past service with NATMO be taken into account for grant of 3^rd ACP benefits. Upon the said representations being rejected, the petitioner in 2017 i.e., almost 9 years after he had superannuated, approached the learned Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 1602/2017, which OA has been dismissed under the impugned order. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is only when pursuant to the decision of the Apex Court in S.I Roop Lal and Others vs. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary of Delhi and Ors . (2000) 1 SCC 644, it became evident that the post of draftsman on which the petitioner was working with NATMO had to be treated as Senior Cartographic Assistant, the post on which he was working in SLSUI that the cause of action for the petitioner to raise a claim for counting of his past service with NATMO accrued. He submits that in the light of the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in SI Roop Lal (supra) , it was evident that the post on which he was working in NATMO had to be treated as equivalent to the post on which he joined SLSUI. He, therefore, contends that the learned Tribunal has erroneously rejected the petitioner’s claim.

¶13

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, we are unable to accept his plea that the post on which the petitioner was working with NATMO is equivalent to post on which he joined SLSUI. The learned Tribunal has, categorically, observed that the pay scale of a draftsman on which post the petitioner was working with

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/05/2024 at 11:29:22

¶16

NATMO was Rs.425/- to Rs.700/-, which was decidedly lower than the pay scale of Rs.550/- to Rs.900/-, i.e., the pay scale on which he was working as Senior Cartographic Assistant with SLSUI and, therefore, two posts could not be treated as equivalent. We find no reason to differ with this conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal. 6. Furthermore, we find that the petitioner had while in service, without any demur accepted the grant of benefits under the ACP Scheme in 1999 and 2006, which were granted by taking into account his service w.e.f., 05.07.1982, the date when he joined the SLSUI. The petitioner approached the learned Tribunal after almost 9 years, for which delay, there is absolutely no explanation. We are, therefore, of the considered view that an issue which had already attained finality in 1982 when the petitioner joined the service with SLUSI without seeking any benefits of his past service with NATMO, cannot be permitted to be re-agitated at this belated stage.

¶17

For the aforesaid reasons, we find no infirmity with the impugned order. The writ petition being meritless is accordingly dismissed.

¶18

REKHA PALLI, J

¶19

SAURABH BANERJEE, J

¶20

MAY 9, 2024/akr

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/05/2024 at 11:29:22

Bal Singh v. Govt of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Bal Singh v. Govt of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Rafi Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

N Vs the Principal Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department & Ors.

Vinod Kumar Pandey Vs M/S General Industrial Company

Sanjay Raghunath Piplani and Anr. Vs National Buildings Construction Corporation Delhi and Anr.

Ashok Kumar Vs at Home India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Swastik Traders Vs Commissioner of Vat and Anr.

Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Vs M K Aggarwal and Ors.

Satwik Raj Vs Jawaharlal Nehru University and Anr.

Rakesh Malra Vs Union of India & Anr.

Smt. Meenakshi Vs Sh. Naresh Kumar & Ors.

I. Srinivasanaik Vs Union of India and Ors.

Defence Civilian Karamchari Union and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Union of India Vs Raghuraj

Union of India & Anr. Vs Anuradha Mookerjee