Jai Prakash Wadhwa and Others Vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi Admn. and Another
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1085 of 1988
Petitioner: Jai Prakash Wadhwa and Others
Respondent: Lt. Governor, Delhi Admn. and Another
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1085 of 1988
Judges: S.C. AGRAWAL & G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 15, 1997
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Fundamental Rules
Rule 22C – Civil Services – Fundamental Rules – Applicability – Teachers of primary schools run by Municipal Corporation – Schools taken over by State Government – Fixation of pay of the teachers of such taken over schools – Whether Rule 22C of Fundamental Rules applies. Held Rule 22C was restricted in its application to a government servant holding a substantive, temporary or officiating capacity to another post carrying re-sponsibilities of greater importance. Teachers of Municipal Schools not government servant and hence could not invoke the protection of Fundamental Rule 22C.
Fundamental Rules
Rule 22C – Civil Services – Fundamental Rules – Applicability – Teachers of primary schools run by Municipal Corporation – Schools taken over by State Government – Fixation of pay of the teachers of such taken over schools – Whether Rule 22C of Fundamental Rules applies. Held Rule 22C was restricted in its application to a government servant holding a substantive, temporary or officiating capacity to another post carrying re-sponsibilities of greater importance. Teachers of Municipal Schools not government servant and hence could not invoke the protection of Fundamental Rule 22C.
Held:
Fundamental Rule 22-C, in its own terms is restricted in its application to a government servant holding a post in a substan-tive, temporary or officiating capacity to another post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attached to the post held by him. The appellants were employees of the Municipal Corporation and were not government servants and since they were not government servants they could not invoke the protection of Fundamental Rule 22-C. (Para 5)
Cases Reffered:
1. Jaiprakash Wadhwa v. Lt. Governor, Delhi Admn. (1987) 4 ATC 898
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
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 Wadhwa v. Lt. Governor, Delhi Admn. filed by the appell-ants before the Delhi High Court which was subsequently trans-ferred 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 Administra-tion was (i) by promotion from Assistant Teachers of the Direc-torate 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 (iii) 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 govern-ment 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. Once such order was passed in the case 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 con-veyed for the fixation of pay of Assistant Teachers of the Munic-ipal 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 Assis-tant 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.
4. Shri Mittal, the learned counsel appearing for the appell-ants, has pointed out that the letter dated 24-11-1973 applies to all Assistant Teachers of the Municipal Corporation, whether appointed by promotion or by direct recruitment and it cannot be confined to Assistant Teachers appointed by promotion. The learned counsel has laid stress on the following words which describe the subject to which the letter relates :
“Fixation of pay of MCD A/teachers on appointment as Trained Graduate Teachers in the Delhi Administration.”
The submission of the learned counsel is that these words in-dicate that the sanction of the President under letter dated 24-11-1973 was applicable to all Assistant Teachers of the Municipal Corporation irrespective of the fact whether they were appointed against the 42% quota reserved for teachers of the Municipal Corporation or against direct recruitment quota. We are unable to agree. The letter dated 24-11-1973 was sent with reference to the letter dated 20-6-1973 on the said subject and the letter dated 20-6-1973 only refers to Assistant Teachers of the Municipal Corporation who were appointed against 42% quota reserved for promotion of such teachers. In these circumstances it cannot be said that sanction of the President was given for applying the provisions of Fundamental Rule 22-C in the matter of those Assis-tant Teachers of the Municipal Corporation who are appointed as Trained Graduate Teachers by way of direct recruitment.
5. Fundamental Rule 22-C, in its own terms is restricted in its application to a government servant holding a post in a substan-tive, temporary or officiating capacity who is promoted or appointed in a substantive, temporary or officiating capacity to another post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attached to the post held by him. The appellants were employees of the Municipal Corporation and were not government servants and since they were not government servants they could not invoke the protection of Fundamental Rule 22-C.
6. Shri Mittal has lastly urged that certain other Assistant Teachers of the Municipal Corporation who were similarly appoint-ed under the direct recruitment quota have been given the benefit of Fundamental Rule 22-C in the matter of fixation of their pay and he has referred to the averments contained in the special leave petition. These facts were not placed before the Tribunal and no such contention was urged. It cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in this appeal.
7. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances we make no order as to costs.
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 Wadhwa v. Lt. Governor, Delhi Admn. filed by the appell-ants before the Delhi High Court which was subsequently trans-ferred 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 Administra-tion was (i) by promotion from Assistant Teachers of the Direc-torate 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 (iii) 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 govern-ment 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. Once such order was passed in the case 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 con-veyed for the fixation of pay of Assistant Teachers of the Munic-ipal 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 Assis-tant 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.
4. Shri Mittal, the learned counsel appearing for the appell-ants, has pointed out that the letter dated 24-11-1973 applies to all Assistant Teachers of the Municipal Corporation, whether appointed by promotion or by direct recruitment and it cannot be confined to Assistant Teachers appointed by promotion. The learned counsel has laid stress on the following words which describe the subject to which the letter relates :
“Fixation of pay of MCD A/teachers on appointment as Trained Graduate Teachers in the Delhi Administration.”
The submission of the learned counsel is that these words in-dicate that the sanction of the President under letter dated 24-11-1973 was applicable to all Assistant Teachers of the Municipal Corporation irrespective of the fact whether they were appointed against the 42% quota reserved for teachers of the Municipal Corporation or against direct recruitment quota. We are unable to agree. The letter dated 24-11-1973 was sent with reference to the letter dated 20-6-1973 on the said subject and the letter dated 20-6-1973 only refers to Assistant Teachers of the Municipal Corporation who were appointed against 42% quota reserved for promotion of such teachers. In these circumstances it cannot be said that sanction of the President was given for applying the provisions of Fundamental Rule 22-C in the matter of those Assis-tant Teachers of the Municipal Corporation who are appointed as Trained Graduate Teachers by way of direct recruitment.
5. Fundamental Rule 22-C, in its own terms is restricted in its application to a government servant holding a post in a substan-tive, temporary or officiating capacity who is promoted or appointed in a substantive, temporary or officiating capacity to another post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attached to the post held by him. The appellants were employees of the Municipal Corporation and were not government servants and since they were not government servants they could not invoke the protection of Fundamental Rule 22-C.
6. Shri Mittal has lastly urged that certain other Assistant Teachers of the Municipal Corporation who were similarly appoint-ed under the direct recruitment quota have been given the benefit of Fundamental Rule 22-C in the matter of fixation of their pay and he has referred to the averments contained in the special leave petition. These facts were not placed before the Tribunal and no such contention was urged. It cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in this appeal.
7. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances we make no order as to costs.
