RAMA NAND & Ors. v. CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & Anr.

Judgment

6 S.C.R. 19 RAMA NAND AND ORS. v. CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. (Civil Appeal Nos. 5829-5830 of 2012) AUGUST 06, 2020 [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, AJAY RASTOGI AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.] Service Law: Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme – Entitlement – To Telephone Operators who were sought to be deployed as Radio Telephone Operators (RTOs) in the higher pay as per re-organisation Scheme – Held: The consequence of re-organisation Scheme was re-description of post based on higher pay-scale and specialized training – This would amount to promotion – Hence not entitled to ACP. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The consequence of reorganisation of the cadre resulted in not only a mere re-description of the post but also a much higher pay scale being granted to the appellants based on an element of selection criteria. There was a requirement of a minimum 5 years of service. Thus, all Telephone Operators would not automatically be eligible for the new post. Undoubtedly, the financial emoluments, are much higher. The appellants had also to go through the rigours of a specialised training. All these cannot be stated to be only an exercise of merely re-description or reorganisation of the cadre. Promotion may include an advancement to a higher pay scale without moving to a different post. In the present case, there is a re-description of the post based on higher pay scale and a specialised training. It is not a case, where the higher pay scale is available to everyone who satisfies the eligibility condition without undergoing any process of selection. The training and the benchmark of 5 years of service itself involve an element of selection process. Similarly, it is not as if the requirement is only a minimum of 5 years of service by itself. [Para 17][27-B-E-] 19 19 A B C D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R.

#2. The complete factual contours of the difference between the two posts would have to be examined in the given factual situation and the triple criteria of minimum 5 years of service, a specialised training and much higher financial emoluments leaves no doubt. What was done has to be considered as a promotion disentitling the appellants to the benefits of the ACP Scheme. As the very objective of the ACP Scheme is “to deal with the problem of genuine stagnation and hardship faced by the employees due to lack of adequate promotional avenues.” [Para 18][27-F]

#3. The benefits of ACP Scheme cannot be held applicable to the appellants and consequently the High Court was right in interfering with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. [Para 16][26-H]