RENU BAKSHI Vs. HIGH COURT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks a direction that the benefit of NonFunctional Pay Scale ("NFPS") should be accorded to her w.e.f. 13.05.1998 when she became eligible for it.

(2.) The facts relevant to this case are that the petitioner was working with the Delhi High Court establishment; at the relevant time, i.e., in 1997-98, she was Sr. Judicial Assistant ("SJA") (in Rs. 9300- 34,800 with GP Rs. 4800). She completed four years in that pay on 13.05.1998. At that time, the NFPS was not available; by reasons of a policy of the Court - the order for which was made on 25.08.2006, employees eligible to that benefit, i.e., those who completed four years in the grade of SJA or equivalent thereto at the relevant stage were entitled to the NFPS. The policy required that the benefits were to be given notionally w.e.f. 01.01.1996 (i.e. in terms of fitment/fixation) and the actual monetary benefits were to flow i.e. and were granted w.e.f. 03.10.2003. The petitioner contends that in terms of the policy, besides the four years' experience in the cadre of SJA, the individual also had to possess the vigilance clearance at the time of his or her consideration for the NFPS. According to the petitioner, the vigilance clearance in respect of her case was obtained on 10.11.2016 but the benefit actually withheld for a considerable amount of time and instead she was granted on 01.07.2013 and made effective from the same date.

(3.) Ms. Saahila Lamba, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in terms of the Office Memorandum of 25.01.2006 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training, Central Government, the cadre authorities could grant NFPS Rs. 8000-275-13,500 subject to fulfillment of three conditions. Firstly that the incumbent had to complete four years of approved service in the grade subject to vigilance clearance; consequently notional pay fixation was to be given from 01.01.1996 though actual benefits were to accrue from 03.10.2003 and that lastly the officers were to be entitled to the arrears of pay with effect from the latter date. The scheme was adopted by the establishment of this Court by orders of the Chief Justice on 17.08.2006. It is submitted that though the petitioner faced some enquiries and charges, in several of them she was exonerated or the period of penalty/disciplinary orders were suffered. It is highlighted that the petitioner was entitled to be considered from the date she completed the four years' period, i.e., 13.05.1998. Though, at that time, an enquiry was pending against her in respect of minor penalty charges (having been initiated on 02.05.1996), the exoneration was recorded by the competent authority on 17.05.1999. On the latter date, there was no impediment in the petitioner's entitlement to the NFPS. It is submitted that the High Court establishment's reliance upon the subsequent charges and the pendency of disciplinary proceedings cannot obscure the fact that at least from 17.05.1999 till 2001, the respondent High Court could have obtained the vigilance clearance and granted the NFPS benefit. Its failure to do so, complains the petitioner's counsel, is arbitrary.