The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of ASI/Pharma Biswa Prakash Jena & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors. consisting of Justices Saurabh Banerjee and Suresh Kumar Kait reiterated that the seniority of petitioners is to be reckoned from the date of recruitment and not the date of their actual appointment.
Facts
The 11 petitioners herein had applied for filling up vacancies to the post of Group ‘C’ Non-Ministerial, Non-Gazetted and Combatized Para Medical Staff: Assistant Sub-Inspector (Pharmacist) in Central Reserve Police Force (“CRPF”), issued in the Employment News. Though the recruitment process of all petitioners was concluded by 26.02.2004, they were appointed as ASI(Pharmacists) later from 19.07.2004 to 17.09.2004.
Procedural History
Despite recommendation of the Vth Central Pay Commission to bring parity of rank structure or pay scales between the Central Police Organizations (“CPOs”), the respondents failed to do so. Few combatized Pharmacists of CRPF filed a service writ petition for grant of the said relief with their counterparts in the Indo Tibetan Border Police (“ITBP”) which was allowed. But the respondent no.3 only made this benefit available to such ASIs/Pharmacists who were enlisted as combatized pharmacists of CRPF with effect from 17.10.1989 to 28.03.2004 and not to petitioners herein, since according to respondents they were all appointed by the CRPF only after 29.03.2004.
The petitioners herein sent a legal notice and by way of the present writ petition primarily seek issuance of a writ of Certiorari quashing replies issued by respondent No. 3 in response to the legal notice, and issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to extend the benefit to the petitioners.
Contentions Made
It was contended by the respondents that the petitioners cannot be extended benefit as they were appointed after 29.03.2004 and the period from the date of advertisement, i.e., from 29.11.2003 to 05.12.2003 to the date of appointment, i.e., from 19.07.2004 to 17.09.2004 was considered as recruitment process.
Observations of the Court ;
Relying on Avinash Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., the Bench reiterated that the seniority of petitioners is to be reckoned from the date of their recruitment and not the date of their actual appointment.
Relying on Inspector Rajendra Singh & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors., it was also reiterated that the respondents cannot change the terms and conditions of service which were applicable at the time of advertisement to the prejudice of the petitioners and that too after their recruitment process is long over.
It also noted the respondents were bound to follow and adhere to the said judgments in letter and in spirit, and that such acts of discrimination inter-se CRPF and ITBP by respondents are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of The Constitution of India, which should not be permitted.
Judgment ;
The Bench allowed this writ petition in favour of the petitioners by issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to extend the benefit of order to them, thereby granting pre-revised pay scale and the rank of SI/Pharmacist on the pattern and analogy which was being given to the similarly situated Pharmacists in ITBP.
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments