LAWS(SC)-1997-1-20

JAIPRAKASH WADHWA Vs. LT GOVERNOR DELHI ADMN

Decided On January 15, 1997
JAIPRAKASH WADHWA Appellant
V/S
LT.GOVERNOR,DELHI ADMN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the central Administrative tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the tribunal") dated 4/5/1987 passed in Jaiprakash Wadhawa v. Lt. governor, Delhi Admn. filed by the appellants before the Delhi High court which was subsequently transferred to the tribunal.

(2.) The appellants were earlier employed as Assistant Teachers in the Primary Schools run by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The Secondary and Middle Schools of the Municipal Corporation were taken over by the Delhi Administration in 1970. Appointment on the post of Trained Graduate teachers in the Delhi Administration was (i) by promotion from Assistant Teachers of the Directorate of Education to the extent of 30%, (ii) by promotion from teachers of Primary Schools of the Municipal Corporation to the extent of 42%, and (in) by direct recruitment to the extent of 28%. In response to the advertisement inviting application for appointment on the post of Trained Graduate Teachers by direct recruitment, the appellants submitted their applications and they were selected by the Staff Selection Board for such appointment and were appointed on the post of trained graduate teachers in the Delhi Administration on the posts falling under the direct recruitment quota on various dates between 1/3/1977 and 15/3/1980. After their appointment their pay as Trained Graduate Teachers was fixed by applying the provisions of Fundamental Rule 22-C and their service as trained graduate teachers with the Municipal Corporation was taken into account. Subsequently, it was decided that the appellants could not be given the benefit of Fundamental Rule 22-C since the said rule only applies to government servants and the appellants, being the employees of the Municipal Corporation, which is an autonomous body, could not be given the benefit of past service rendered in the Municipal Corporation. The pay of the appellants was, therefore, reduced. One such order was passed in thecase of O. P. Madan, Appellant 15 on 14/8/1980. Feeling aggrieved by reduction of pay under order dated 14/8/1980 the appellants filed a writ petition in the Delhi High court which has given rise to this appeal. The said petition was subsequently transferred to the tribunal and it has been dismissed by the impugned judgment.

(3.) The tribunal has held that the benefit of Fundamental Rule 22-C could not be extended to the appellants and the order dated 14/8/1980 does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The tribunal rejected the submission urged on behalf of the appellants that by letter dated 24/11/1973 the sanction of the President was conveyed for the fixation of pay of Assistant Teachers of the Municipal Corporation on appointment in the grade of trained graduate teachers in the Delhi Administration under Fundamental Rule 22-C. It was held that the said sanction was only in respect of Assistant Teachers who had been appointed as Trained Graduate Teachers by way of promotion against the 42% quota reserved for promotion of Assistant Teachers of the Municipal Corporation.