MOHAN Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition, the petitioner herein prays inter alia for directions to respondent No. 2 to revise/fix the pay scale of the petitioner as per the 5th Pay Commission Report, without being compelled to step down from the post of Sports Attendant to the post of Groundsman.

(2.) Briefly stated, facts relevant for disposing of the present petition are as follows: The Indira Gandhi Institute of Physical Education and Sports Science (hereinafter referred to as the ?Institute?), respondent No. 2 herein, was established in August, 1987 and is a constituent college of the University of Delhi, respondent No.1. In the year 1989, the petitioner applied to respondent No.2. for the post of Sports Attendant and was appointed to the said post on the basis his experience and qualification, though the said post was unapproved at that time. Petitioner joined duties w.e.f. 15th February, 1989.

(3.) Thereafter, it was decided in the meeting of the Governing Body of the Institute, dated 12th February, 1993, that the respondent No.1. be approached with regard to sanctioning of the posts of Class-IV employees, i.e. Sports Attendant and Groundsman. Accordingly, a meeting was held with a committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor of respondent No.1. on 21st April, 1993 and in the said meeting, the revised norms of non-teaching Class-IV employees were laid down. The post of Sports Attendant was discussed but was not approved. The respondent No.2 was informed of the said decision vide letter dated 20.8.1993, issued on behalf of respondent No. 1. The relevant extract of the minutes of the meeting held on 21.4.1993, are reproduced herein below:- ? The letter received from the Principal, Indira Gandhi Institute of Physical Education and Sports Sciences regarding re-examination of the norms of non- teaching staff in respect of the Institute together with the recommendations of the Committee made earlier regarding norms for Non-teaching Staff for the Institute were placed before the Committee. The Principal explained to the members, entire position with regard to the existing staff appointed by the Institute with the approval of the Governing Body before the new norms now laid down by the Committee. After discussion of the matter taking into account the overall position regarding the existing staff strength and the requirements, in view of the specialised nature of the College, the Committee revised the norms for Non- academic Class IV staff as follows:- Daftri - 1 as against 2 recommended earlier. Peons - 4 as against 5 recommended earlier. Waterman -1 Safai Karamcharis - 4 Chowkidars - 4 (incl.Gate Men) Mali - 2 Groundsmen - 7 additional (in the pay scale of Rs.750-940) The Committee was not in favour of any change in the norms of other ministerial staff already recommended.? Pursuant to the above decision, the employees on the post of Sports Attendants fell surplus and they were informed by the Institute vide Office Order dated 21st May, 1993 that they could opt for working as Groundsman which had the same pay scale, benefits etc., so that there was no break in their service and all the employees could be absorbed by the Institute. It is relevant to note here that all the other employees working in the post of Sports Attendants opted for the post of Groundsmen. All of them were absorbed and their pay was fixed as per the revised pay scale of the 5th Pay Commission in the year 1994, itself. In reply to the letter issued by the Institute, the petitioner vide his letter dated 4th July, 1994, stated that since the post of Sports Attendant had been abolished, therefore he may be appointed as Training Attendant, Daftari, Head Mali or Peon, wherever there was a vacancy, or to be appointed at any post that the Institute found fit and proper, keeping in view his experience and qualifications. Accordingly, the Institute, having found the petitioner qualified for the job of Groundsman, informed him vide letter dated 4th August, 1994 of his appointment to the said post. Though, the petitioner continued to work at the said post till the year 2000, he, however, did not fill up the option form to be appointed as a Groundsmen. In the meantime, the 5th Pay Commission Report was implemented, and since the petitioner had not filled in his option form, as indicated above, his pay scale could not be revised by the Institute according to the 5th Pay Commission Report. It is this grievance of which the petitioner seeks redressal through this writ petition.