RAMA NAND AND ORS. versus CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 6 S.C.R. 19 · Decided: 06-08-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
19
RAMA NAND AND ORS.
v.
CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5829-5830 of 2012)
AUGUST 06, 2020
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, AJAY RASTOGI AND
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Service Law:
Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme – Entitlement –
To Telephone Operators who were sought to be deployed as Radio
Telephone Operators (RTOs) in the higher pay as per re-organisation
Scheme – Held: The consequence of re-organisation Scheme was
re-description of post based on higher pay-scale and specialized
training – This would amount to promotion – Hence not entitled to
ACP.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The consequence of reorganisation of the cadre
resulted in not only a mere re-description of the post but also a
much higher pay scale being granted to the appellants based on
an element of selection criteria. There was a requirement of a
minimum 5 years of service. Thus, all Telephone Operators would
not automatically be eligible for the new post. Undoubtedly, the
financial emoluments, are much higher. The appellants had also
to go through the rigours of a specialised training. All these cannot
be stated to be only an exercise of merely re-description or
reorganisation of the cadre. Promotion may include an
advancement to a higher pay scale without moving to a different
post. In the present case, there is a re-description of the post
based on higher pay scale and a specialised training. It is not a
case, where the higher pay scale is available to everyone who
satisfies the eligibility condition without undergoing any process
of selection. The training and the benchmark of 5 years of service
itself involve an element of selection process. Similarly, it is not
as if the requirement is only a minimum of 5 years of service by
itself. [Para 17][27-B-E-]
[2020] 6 S.C.R. 19
19
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 6 S.C.R.
2. The complete factual contours of the difference between
the two posts would have to be examined in the given factual
situation and the triple criteria of minimum 5 years of service, a
specialised training and much higher financial emoluments leaves
no doubt. What was done has to be considered as a promotion
disentitling the appellants to the benefits of the ACP Scheme. As
the very objective of the ACP Scheme is “to deal with the problem
of genuine stagnation and hardship faced by the employees due
to lack of adequate promotional avenues.” [Para 18][27-F]
3. The benefits of ACP Scheme cannot be held applicable
to the appellants and consequently the High Court was right in
interfering with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
[Para 16][26-H]
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. R. Santhakumari
Velusamy and Others (2011) 9 SCC 510 : [2011] 14
SCR 502; Union of India v. Pushpa Rani (2008) 9 SCC
242 : [2008] 11 SCR 440 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2011] 14 SCR 502
relied on
Para 10
[2008] 11 SCR 440
relied on
Para 12
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5829-
5830 of 2012.
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.05.2009 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 8406-8407 of 2004.
Surinder Kumar Gupta, Adv. for the Appellants.
Ms. Madhvi Divan, ASG, Ms. Kiran Suri, Ms. Rashmi Malhotra
(for B.V. Balaram Das), Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
1. The appellants were all working as Telephone Operators with
the Delhi Fire Service (“DFS”). On account of reorganisation of the
wireless communication system, ninety-six posts of Radio Telephone
Operators were sought to be created in terms of a letter dated 29.8.1983.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
21
Six Radio Operators were already operating as such, while twenty-seven
Telephone Operators, in the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 were sought to be
deployed as Radio Telephone Operators (“RTOs”) in a higher pay scale.
The reorganisation scheme was approved on 10.10.1983 by the Municipal
Corporation of Delhi.
2. The Telephone Operators had to go through a training and to
be deployed as RTOs, a further condition was imposed of 5 years regular
service, though it is alleged by the appellants that the same was not part
of the letter dated 29.8.1983. An important development took place on
9.8.1999 whereby the Department of Personnel and Training, Government
of India issued an Office Memorandum introducing an Assured Career
Progression (“ACP”) Scheme, by which a decision was taken to grant
two financial upgradations after completion of 12 and 24 years of 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.