Sunil Kumar Gupta v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW,J

NOVEMBER 16, 2011 pp..

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 16th November, 2011 + W.P.(C) 8245/2010 SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjiv Sharma, Adv. Versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Standing Counsel, GNCTD with Mr. Abhijeet Kakoti, Adv. for R-1&3. AND + W.P.(C) 7924/2010 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Standing Counsel, GNCTD with Mr. Abhijeet Kakoti, Adv. Versus SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjiv Sharma, Adv. Mr. Baldev Malik, Adv. for R-2. CORAM :- HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE 1. It is unfortunate that the petitioner who is a Law Officer in Tihar Jail and is defending the Jail Authorities in various legal cases has to knock the doors of courts to seek justice for himself, specially when the respondents appreciate and understand the plight of the petitioner and the unfair treatment which has been meted out to the petitioner in grant of pay scales as well as non-promotion and though the respondents themselves appreciated and recommended for not only providing proper promotional avenues but also suitable upgradation to the higher pay scales; however when it came to implementation thereof, the respondents utterly failed therein. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Asstt. Supdt. in the Prison Department of the respondent no.1, Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 8th May, 1981. While the petitioner was working in the aforesaid capacity, the Government had set up Justice A.N. Mulla Committee on prison reforms. The said Committee submitted its report in March, 1983 making various recommendations for reforming the prisons. These recommendations included creation of post of Law Officer in a jail housing 750 prisoners and Dy. Director (Legal Affairs) at Prison Headquarters. Pursuant to the aforesaid recommendation, on 27th June, 1986 ad hoc post of Law Officer was created with pay scale of `2375-225-3500. However Recruitment Rules for this post were formulated. The petitioner, on 16th October, 1986 was promoted to the post of Dy. Supdt. Grade-II. The petitioner was appointed as Law Officer on ad hoc basis on 15th May, 1996. Vide order dated 14th May, 1997 his appointment as Law Officer was regularized w.e.f. 15th May, 1996 i.e. the date of which the petitioner was initially appointed as the Law Officer. He was given the pay scale of `7450-11500, the then pay scale of the said post. He was notionally promoted to the post of Dy. Supdt. Grade-I w.e.f. 23rd December, 1994, which was the regular cadre in which he initially joined the services in the Prison Department. This notional promotion was given to him up to 15th May, 1996 when he had joined as Law Officer. 3. It will be demonstrated from the above that before the petitioner joined as Law Officer, in his erstwhile cadre he had got promoted from Asstt. Supdt. to Dy. Supdt. Grade II and thereafter Dy. Supdt. Grade-I. However after becoming Law Officer the petitioner stagnated. It is because of the reason that not only the post was created on ad hoc basis but there were no Recruitment Rules for the said post. 4. The petitioner made representations for creating promotional avenues. These representations were forwarded with strong recommendation of the Director General (Prison) to the Home Department of the respondent no.1. The Addl. Secretary (Home) even recommended creation of one post of Chief Law Officer and five posts of Law Officer. The Prison Department had taken up the case with 6th Central Pay Commission as well for according financial upgradation to the post of Law Officer after 8 years and 13 years of service respectively in the absence of any promotional avenues. Such a recommendation was made even by the Chief