VANDANA SHARMA Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has filed this OA stating that the respondents have not been granting the applicant pay scale under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme even after serving the department for more than 22 years and despite several representations have been made on 29.11.10 and 30.04.11. Briefly stated, according to the OA, the applicant joined the service as TGT with the respondents -Organization on 21.03.1990 and is presently posted in the Senior Secondary School at Bawana, New Delhi. Prior to her appointment in 1990, she was posted to the post of TGT on temporary basis vide order dated 9.2.1990, copy of which is at Annexure A -2. She was eligible to be granted ACP and had completed 12/24 years of regular service on 20.3.2002 as per the copy of the noting in the file dated 17.03.2009 (Annexure A -3). There were no adverse remarks in her ACR nor had any adverse action been taken against her. When finally the matter was sent to DPC, it was found that the grading in her ACR for 2002, 2001 and 2000 were Average and Poor. Accordingly, the applicant was not communicated. She made several representations for review of her ACRs for the years 1999 -2000, 2000 -2001, 2001 -2002 and from 2010 onwards when she came to know of it. She was suffering from mental depression during the period 1999 -2002 for which her ACRs were downgraded. It is contended that these ACRs should have been ignored and equal number of ACRs for the proceeding years should have been considered because of her illness in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India & Ors., : 2010 (1) SCC (L & S) 959. On being asked about her mental condition, she produced documents on 7.2.2012 (Annexure A -8). Since no action was taken, even after more than 3 months, she made another request for granting ACP in Senior Scale vide letter dated 5.5.2012 but she received no reply to the same from the respondents.

(2.) IN their counter reply to the amended OA, respondents have stated that the OA has been filed with great delay since it relates to Senior Scale and ACP w.e.f. 2002. We are, however, inclined to waive this objection in favour of the applicant because the non grant of ACP/Senior Scale from 2002 is a continuing cause of action and cannot be an adverse factor against the relief being sought by her. Moreover, the applicant has filed representations in between because of which the cause of action continued to be validated.

(3.) REJOINDER has been filed controverting the reply of the respondents as also reiterating facts stated in the O.A.