AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A): With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we have heard this matter and proceeded to dispose of by this Order.
The grievance of the applicants is against the action of the respondents in denying them the benefit of 2nd/3rd TBP Scale/DTL Scale in the scale of Rs.37,400–67,000 with Grade Pay of Rs.8,900 on completion of 18/26 years of service, despite such benefit having been extended to their juniors and other similarly situated persons, along with all consequential benefits. Thus, by filing the instant OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, they are seeking the following reliefs:
"(a)To quash and set aside the impugned order dated 04.04.2025 (A-1) & order dated 31.05.2019 (A-2) and direct the respondents to grant 2nd/3rd TBP Scale/ DTL Scale to the applicants in the scale of Rs.37400-67000 with grade pay of Rs. 8900 on completion of 18/26 years of service with all consequential benefits and at par with applicants in OA No. 1366/2016.
(b)To direct the respondents to grand 2nd/3rd TBP Scale/ DTL Scale to the applicants in the scale of Rs. 37400-67000 with grade pay of Rs. 8900 on completion of 18/26 years of service with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and interest In time bound manner.
(c)To allow the OA with cost.
(d)To pass such other and further orders which their lordships of this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of this case."
Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed their counter reply opposing the claim of the applicants.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANTS
During the course of hearing, Shri M.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel submitted that the applicants were appointed as Junior Engineers (Civil) and Assistant Engineers (Civil) under the direct recruitment quota in the New Delhi Municipal Council (in short 'NDMC') during the period from May 1972 to October 1997. During the period from 04.03.2009 to 13.04.2011, the respondents did not convene the Departmental Promotion Committee (in short 'DPC') for regular promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil). Upon the applicants raising an objection, they were promoted as Executive Engineers (Civil) on ad hoc basis against clear vacancies, following the procedure adopted for regular promotions.
Learned counsel also submitted that such promotions, having been made against clear vacancies and after following the prescribed procedure, ought to have been treated as regular promotions, however, the respondents continued to treat them as ad hoc for several years. Further, during September 2014, the respondents granted 1st and 2nd Time Bound Promotional (in short 'TBP') Scales to employees of other cadres of NDMC on completion of the requisite period of service. However, despite completion of the requisite years of service, the applicants were denied the corresponding benefit of the TBP Scale. Aggrieved by the denial, the applicants represented to the respondents on 06.04.2016 seeking grant of 2nd/3rd financial upgradation/TBP Scale at par with their juniors and similarly placed employees. Instead of extending the benefit to the applicants, the respondents issued an order dated 27.07.2017 withdrawing the benefit from similarly placed employees, including juniors.
Learned counsel further submitted that the said action was challenged by aforesaid employees before this Tribunal by filing OA No.1366/2016, titled William Parashar and others vs. NDMC and another, and this Tribunal, vide Order/Judgment dated 16.02.2017, after elaborate discussion and having regard to the case law on the subject held as under:-
"17.We now come to the crucial issue of the applicants being put to harm because the respondents failed to hold the DPCs in time. Had they held DPCS on time, the applicants would have go the benefit of 2nd TBP as according to their interpretation and also according to the respondents interpretation, their service would have been regular. To that extent, reliance by the learned Central Administrative Tribunalcounsel for the applicants on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble High Court and the Tribunal is justified. However, though none of the counsels have raised this issue before us, we observe that the admitted position is that an employee under TBP Scheme will get two upgradations, first after 10 years of regular service and the second after 18 years of regular service provided he has not been able to earn any promotion in the normal course. The applicants were granted promotion on ad hoc basis as EE between 2008 to 2011 (list of dates) and, therefore, they were rightly given the 1st TBP upgradations with effect from 2006 (ten years from appointment). But they were given CDC of SE between 2013 and 2015 (list of dates). They became eligible after 18 years of service for 2nd TBP in 2014 on different dates. Therefore, only those applicants would be eligible for 2nd TBP who were not granted SE's CDC before the date they completed 18 years of service, Those who have received CDC of SE before the date they completed 18 years, obviously are already in SE's scale (2nd TBP Scale) and there is no need to grant 2nd TBP scale.
18.The OA is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicants in view of our above finding. Time frame of 90 days is fixed for compliance of our orders. No costs."
It is further submitted that the aforesaid Order/Judgment of this Tribunal was challenged by the respondents before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by filing W.P. (C) No.5139/2017, titled New Delhi Municipal Council vs. William Parashar and others, which came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide Order/Judgment dated 27.07.2017 by holding that "We,
thus, find no error in the impugned order dated 16th February, 2017 passed by the Tribunal. The relief granted to the Respondents was due to just and equitable considerations as well. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in the exercise of our discretionary writ jurisdiction."
Learned counsel thus argued that after dismissal of the said Writ Petition, the applicants claimed that the respondents were required to extend the benefit of TBP Central Administrative TribunalScale/DTL Scale to them as well, particularly, when such benefit had already been granted to their juniors and similarly situated employees. However, as the respondents failed to grant the said benefit, the applicants along with other similarly situated employees approached this Tribunal by filing OA No.3921/2017, titled A.K. Pathak and others vs. NDMC and another, in October-November 2017, contending that the denial of the similar benefits to them was arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles of law, including the judgments relied upon by them. The said OA was disposed of by this Tribunal vide Order/Judgment dated 09.11.2017 with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representations of the applicants keeping in view the Tribunal's aforesaid order dated 16.02.2017 passed in OA No.1366/2016 in the case of William Parashar (supra) which was also upheld by the Hon'ble High Court as noted above.
Learned counsel also submitted that as the respondents failed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the stipulated period, the applicants filed Contempt Petition No.663/2018 before this Tribunal. During the pendency of the contempt proceedings, the respondents rejected the claim of the applicants vide order dated 28/29.05.2019. Consequently, the said Contempt Petition was closed by this Tribunal vide order dated 31.05.2019. The relevant paras of the said Order dated 31.05.2019 passed in the above CP which read as under:-
"5.The respondents were required to dispose of the representations, by passing a reasoned and speaking order. Today, the learned counsel for respondents has placed before us a copy of the order dated 28.05.2019. The various aspects mentioned in the representation submitted by the applicants were considered and, through an order dated 28.05.2019, the claim of the applicants was rejected. Specific reference is made to the order in OA No.1366/2016. It was noted that the WP(C) No.5139/2017 filed against the order in the OA was dismissed and thereupon SLP No.5463/2018 was filed and the same is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6.Once the respondents have passed an order, in compliance with the directions issued by the Tribunal, it cannot be said that there is any contempt on their part. Therefore, we close the contempt case."
Aggrieved by the aforesaid Order of this Tribunal passed in the said CP, the applicants approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by way of Writ Petition (C) No.139/2020, titled A.K. Pathak and others vs. NDMC and another. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court on 11.09.2024 with directions to the respondents to consider the applicants' claim for grant of TBP Scale/DTL Scale in terms of the benefit granted to the applicants in OA No. 1366/2016, particularly in view of the fact that the order passed in the said OA had attained finality. The relevant paras of the said Order read as under:-
"2.Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph 9.3 of the order dated 28.05.2019 passed by Joint Director (Civil) and the same is reproduced as under:
“9.3Separately NDMC has filed SLP No. 5463/2018 against the judgment dated 27.07.2017 of Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No. 5139/2017 which was filed against the Hon’ble CAT, Principal Bench judgment dated 16.02.2017 in O.A. No. 1366/2016 filed by Shri William Parasar and others. The issue relating to grant of 3rd TBPS to the pay scale of the post of Superintending Engineer, raised by Shri A.K. Pathak and Others is thus sub-judice and no further action can be taken till the decision of Central Administrative TribunalHon’ble Supreme Court.”
3.The issue pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already been decided and dismissed vide order dated 30.04.2024 in SLP Civil No. 5463/2018 in the case titled New Delhi Municipal Council vs. William Parasher & Ors.
4.Keeping in view the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case mentioned above, the respondents are directed to pass fresh orders within four weeks. The same shall be communicated to the petitioners within one week and if they are found to be eligible, the benefits shall be given within four weeks thereafter.
5.It is needless to state that in case the petitioners are still aggrieved, they may challenge the same before the appropriate forum."
Pursuant thereto, the respondents once again rejected the claim of the applicants vide order dated 04.04.2025. Thereafter, the applicants have filed a Misc. Application before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi being CM Appl. 34546/2025 seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i)to direct the respondents to comply with the judgment and order dated 11.09.2024 in WP (C) No. 1349/2020 in true letter and spirit.
(ii)To direct the respondents to examine the eligibility of petitioners for grant of 2nd & 3rd Time Bound Promotion Scale / DTL pay scales keeping in view the judgment and order dated 27.07.2017 in WP (C) No.5139/2017 and order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 30.04.2024 in SLP No.5463/2018 and grant the 2nd & 3rd Time Bound Promotion Scale / DTL pay scales as accorded to petitioners i.e. William Parashar & Ors. (Juniors & Similarly placed persons) in WP (C) No. 5139/2017 in time bound manner with interest.”
The Hon'ble High Court vide Order dated 29.05.2025 dismissed the same, the relevant paras of the same are as under:-
"2.In our view, the present application seeking the above reliefs is not maintainable in a disposed of petition. The petitioners must avail appropriate remedies as permissible in law.
3.The application is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty as above."
Shri M.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the applicant argued that impugned order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the respondents is not only illegal but also contemptuous in nature inasmuch the respondents have denied the benefit of order dated 16.02.2017 in OA No.1366/2016 by raising same objections which were set aside by this Tribunal vide aforesaid Order/Judgment dated 16.02.2017, as well as Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide Order/Judgment dated 27.07.2017 in WP (C) No.5139/2017. Furthermore, in the impugned order, the respondents have made contemptuous statement.
Learned counsel also submitted that while passing the impugned order, the respondents failed to consider that the applicants in OA No.1366/2016 were granted the benefit of DTL Pay Scale as claimed by the applicants and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed SLP No.5463/2018 filed against the aforesaid Order/ Judgment of Hon'ble High Court vide Order/Judgment dated 27.07.2017, as mentioned above. After dismissal of said SLP, the respondents were required to grant the benefit of DTL Pay Scale made available to the applicants.
Learned counsel also submitted that the respondents have failed to consider that in the Order dated 06.04.1999 itself it has been provided that induction to Class-I by way of grant of TBP Scale make the promotee also eligible to get next TBP Scale. Furthermore, all the objections as raised by the respondents in their order dated 28/29.05.2019 were already rejected by this Tribunal as well as Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Learned counsel argued that the entire action of respondents in not granting the 2nd/3rd TBP Scale in the Pay Scale of Rs.37400-67000 with Grade Pay of Rs.8900 to the applicants is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to Order/Judgment of Hon'ble High Court dated 27.07.2017 in WP (C) No.5139/2017 (NDMC vs. William parasar and others (supra)) as upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Learned counsel also contended that while passing the impugned orders, the respondents failed to consider that the Hon'ble Tribunal had issued specific directions to the respondents vide Order/Judgment dated 09.11.2017 in their earlier OA No.3921/2017 (A.K. Pathak and others vs. NDMC and another) to consider the claim of applicants for grant of DTL Pay Scale keeping in view the Order/Judgment passed in OA No.1366/2016, which was filed by the similarly placed persons as well as juniors of the applicants and the respondents have not disputed that the applicants are identically placed to applicants in OA No. 1366/2016.
Learned counsel also contended that while passing the impugned order, the respondents failed to consider that on dismissal of SLP No.5463/2018 against the Order/ Judgment in OA No.1366/2016 and the Order/Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 27.07.2017 in WP (C) No.5139/2017, the respondents left with no ground to deny the DTL pay scale to applicants.
Learned counsel then submitted that the impugned action of respondents in not granting to the applicants' 2nd /3rd Time Bound Promotional Scale on completion of l8/26 years of service and granting the same to the similarly placed persons including juniors is highly illegal, arbitrary and unjustified.
Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents failed to consider that the applicants were to be granted the higher scale of Rs.37400-67000 with grade pay of Rs. 8900 as all the applicants had completed as JE 26 years & AE 18 years of service and also got promotion as EE (C) as per their eligibility and suitability. In fact, the respondents have made vague statement regarding eligibility of applicants to get DTL pay scale and financial upgradation under Time Bound Promotional Scale/Scheme.
Further, it is also submitted that the respondents have failed to consider that the applicants cannot be made to suffer for no fault on their part, So far as ad hoc promotion to the post of EE (C) is concerned, learned counsel contended that the same could not have been treated as ad hoc for the purpose of grant of further benefits including pay scales under TBP inasmuch as, the only reason to treat the aforesaid promotion of applicants as ad hoc was the respondents own fault of not conducting DPC for years together. By taking note of said lapse of respondents, this Tribunal as well as Hon'ble High Court has already held that the Scheme dated 06.04.1999 could not have been interpreted in the manner as to deprive those candidates who have worked on the promotional scale for years together without getting regular promotion because the regular promotion only because of respondents not conducting timely DPCs for regular promotion. In support of above contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the Order/Judgment dated 15.10.2025 of this Tribunal in OA No.3019/2016, titled Harish Pal Singh vs. NDMC and others wherein this Tribunal hold that the promotion to the post of EE (C) the applicants therein was directed to be treated as regular from the respective date of their ad hoc promotions.
Learned counsel also contended that the whole actions of the respondents are violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution inasmuch as no action has been taken for granting the aforesaid pay scale to the applicants by following the same procedure as followed while granting the said scale to similarly placed persons as well as juniors as evident from pay fixation order of similarly placed persons and juniors Annexure A-11 (Colly.) which proves that the applicants are similarly placed to applicants in OA No. 1366/2076.
Learned counsel also argued that the impugned action of respondents is thus the creation and outcome of colorable exercise and misuse of administrative power by some high handed interested officials and the same is evident from the comparative details of applicants herein as well as applicants in OA No. 1366/2016. The applicants herein and applicants in said OA both claimed Time Bound Promotional Scale/DTL Scale on completion of 18/26 years of service as per the aforesaid scheme. The applicants have been deprived from the same, whereas, the applicants in OA No. 1366/2016 have been granted the said Time Bound Scale after the order of Hon'ble High Court dated 27.07.2017 and Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 30.04.2024. The details of the applicant in the instant OA and the applicants in the said OA No.1366/2016 are mentioned in tabulation form as under:-
| Details of Applicants | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Name | Date of appointment as JE/AE (Civil) | Date of Promotion as EE (C) on adhoc basis | Due date of grant of Time Bound Scale 2nd and 3rd |
| A.K. Pathak | April 1988 | August 2005 | August 2005 |
| Murshid Ali | May 1972 | December 2007 | December 2007 |
| M.A. Khan | February 1979 | February 2008 | February 2008 |
| Krishan Mohan | March 1983 | November 2012 | November 2012 |
| Harish Taneja | March 1983 | November 2012 | November 2012 |
| R.K. Garg | Central Administrative Tribunal June 1981 | July 2014 | July 2014 |
| Mammoo Khan | July 1981 | July 2014 | July 2014 |
| T.R. Meena | October 1997 | January 2006 | October 2015 |
| V.K. Nimesh | June 1997 | November 2011 | June 2015 |
| Brij Kumar | December 1986 | July 2014 | July 2014 |
| Details of Applicants in OA No. 1366/2016 | |||
| Name | Date of appointment as JE/AE (Civil) | Date of Promotion as EE (C) on adhoc basis | Due date of grant of Time Bound Scale 2nd and 3rd |
| William Parashar | 05.07.1996 | 13.09.2012 | 05.07.2014 |
| Ajay Gupta | 01.02.1996 | 02.02.2009 | 01.02.2014 |
| S.A. Khan | 15.01.1996 | 04.03.2008 | 15.01.2014 |
| Rajshekhar | 15.01.1996 | 01.06.2009 | 15.01.2014 |
| Gauri Shankar | 15.01.1996 | May 2009 | 15.01.2014 |
Learned counsel vehemently argued that the impugned action of respondents is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of judicial pronouncement on the subject and therefore the impugned order deserves to be set aside on this ground alone.
Learned counsel also submitted that the respondents have failed to consider that while implementing TBP Scale / DTL, the benefits granted under TB Financial Upgradation Scheme i.e. ACP/ MACP Scheme were withdrawn, therefore, the applicants were also required to be given Time Bound Promotional Scale. The respondents should have considered that the TBP Scales are granted by taking note of various factors and in supersession of existing schemes, therefore on denying the said scale, the prejudice bound to be caused to the employee concerned.
Learned counsel also submitted that the respondents have failed to consider that the applicants discharged the duties & responsibilities of EE (C) and their juniors as well as similarly placed persons who are discharging the same duties have already been granted the pay scale of Rs. 37400- 67000 with grade pay of Rs.8900.
Learned counsel also argued that in the impugned order dated 28.05.2019 signed on 29.05.2019, it has been stated that the applicants cannot be granted the 2nd/3rd TBPS in the scale of SE as the SLP No.5463/2018 is pending against the Order/Judgment dated 27.07.2017 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No. 5139/2017 which was filed against the order dated 16.02.2017 in OA No.1366/2016. Now the said SLP No.5463/2018 has been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, the respondents have no authority to deny the TBPS to applicants at par with applicants in OA No.1366/2016.
Lastly, learned counsel contended that the entire action of respondents in not granting the 2nd/3rd TBP Scale to the applicants and granting the same to similarly placed persons as well as juniors is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional as evident from Annexure A-12.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Mrs. Rashmi Chopra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that no cause of action has accrued to the applicants to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, inasmuch as no enforceable right of the applicants, nor any rule or binding instruction, has been violated or infringed by the action of the respondents. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ekta Shakti Foundation Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, reported as AIR 2006 SC 2609.
Further, it is submitted that it is a settled proposition of law that, in exercise of the power of judicial review, the Courts cannot review the decision but the decision-making process. The Court would interfere only where the decision-making process is vitiated by arbitrariness, bias or mala fides. Reliance in this regard is placed upon UOI Vs. A.K. Narula, reported as (2007) 11 SCC 10. Since the action of the answering respondents is not vitiated by arbitrariness, bias or mala fides, no interference is called for.
It is also submitted that the action of the respondents is in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions on the subject and does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Therefore, the applicants have no cause of action to maintain the present proceedings and the application is misconceived and without any cause of action.
Learned Senior counsel submitted that the challenge to the orders dated 04.04.2025 and 28/29.05.2019 is wholly misconceived and untenable, as the said orders were passed in strict compliance with the directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and this Tribunal, as well as in accordance with the prescribed procedure and due process of law followed by the NDMC.
On the question of limitation, learned Sr. counsel submitted that the challenge to the order dated 28.05.2019 is ex facie barred by limitation. The prescribed period for raising such grievance had long expired in terms of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The applicants, having failed to assail the said order within the statutory period, cannot now seek to revive a stale claim under the guise of the present proceedings.
Learned Senior counsel submitted that the dates of appointment of the applicants are not disputed to the extent they correspond with the official records maintained by the NDMC.
It is also submitted that the NDMC has implemented the Delhi Transco Limited (DTL) scales and Time Bound Promotional Scale (TBPS) benefits for the employees of the Civil Engineering Department with retrospective effect from 01.04.1998, in accordance with the established policies. While the first TBPS was granted to eligible Assistant Engineers upon completion of 10 years of regular service, the second TBPS requires not only completion of 18 years of total service but also regular, and not ad hoc, appointment to the promotional post of Executive Engineer, as explicitly provided in the applicable DTL orders.
Learned Sr. counsel further submitted that the delay in conducting regular promotions was not attributable to any administrative negligence on the part of the NDMC. Rather, the same resulted from persistent litigation initiated by members of the Engineering Cadre, which effectively prevented the NDMC from conducting the Departmental Promotion Committees. The applicable policy clearly provides that financial upgradation cannot be granted to Executive Engineers appointed on ad hoc basis or Superintending Engineers holding current duty charge, unless there is regular appointment as Executive Engineer. Therefore, rejection of the applicants’ claim for second TBPS is fully consistent with the established policy framework, which has not been overturned by any Court.
Learned Sr. counsel also submitted that the promotions of the applicants were correctly termed as “ad hoc”, since they were not regular promotions made in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. As per the DTL order dated 23.07.1997, the second time-bound promotional scale could be granted only to officers who had been appointed on regular basis to the first promotional grade as per the Recruitment Rules. The ad hoc appointments were made subject to the outcome of various legal proceedings, as directed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 12.04.2005 in W.P. (C) No.18471-73 of 2004.
It is further submitted that, as per DTL instructions issued vide Order No.F5(11) A&G/PRC/89 dated 19.10.2000, Junior Engineers and directly recruited Assistant Engineers could be considered for second and third financial upgradation to the post of Superintending Engineer only after they had been promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on regular basis in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. Since the applicants were never appointed as Executive Engineers on regular basis under the Recruitment Rules, they were not eligible for the second TBPS. The Office Order dated 06.04.1999 also clearly stipulates that the benefit of financial upgradation cannot be granted to Executive Engineers (ad hoc)/Superintending Engineers (CDC) without their regular appointment as Executive Engineer.
Learned Sr. counsel also submitted that the withdrawal of the Second TBPS vide order dated 06.04.2016 was necessitated because the initial grant was found to be contrary to the applicable policy provisions and was, therefore, ab initio non-est in the eyes of law. The order dated 16.02.2017 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 1366/2016 and the judgment dated 27.07.2017 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 5139/2017 merely directed reconsideration of the grant of the second TBPS to the applicants in that case, on the basis of the period of service rendered on ad hoc promotion or current duty charge basis. Those orders did not overturn or invalidate the applicable policy, which expressly disallows financial upgradation to Executive Engineers (ad hoc)/Superintending Engineers (CDC) unless the concerned employee has been appointed as Executive Engineer on regular basis.
Learned Sr. counsel argued that the applicants cannot claim the second TBPS merely because the same benefit was granted to William Parashar and others. The judgment of this Tribunal dated 16.02.2017 in OA No.1366/2016 was specifically confined to the five applicants, who were parties to that litigation. The direction to “reconsider the case of the applicants” referred only to those particular individuals. It is a well-established principle that judicial orders are binding upon the parties to the case unless the Court expressly makes the benefit applicable to all similarly situated persons. The Hon’ble High Court, while upholding the Tribunal’s decision, also dealt with those particular applicants. Hence, the present applicants cannot claim the benefit of a judgment to which they were not parties, particularly when such benefit would run contrary to the established policy requiring regular appointment to the first promotional grade.
Learned Sr. counsel also submitted that the allegation that the NDMC failed to comply with the orders of this Tribunal is entirely incorrect. The NDMC duly complied with the directions issued in OA No.3921/2017 dated 09.11.2017 by passing a detailed and reasoned order dated 28.05.2019 after considering the representations of the applicants. This Tribunal, upon examining such compliance, closed the Contempt Petition No. 663/2018 vide order dated 31.05.2019, observing that once the respondents had passed an order in compliance with the Tribunal’s directions, it could not be said that there was any contempt on their part.
Learned Sr. counsel further submitted that, subsequently, when the applicants challenged the said order before the Hon’ble High Court, the Hon’ble High Court, vide Order dated 11.09.2024 in W.P. (C) No. 1349/2020, directed the NDMC to pass fresh orders in the light of dismissal of SLP (Civil) No. 5463/2018 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 30.04.2024. In faithful compliance with the said direction, the NDMC examined the eligibility of the applicants, considered all relevant facts, including the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and passed a fresh and comprehensive order dated 04.04.2025 within the stipulated time. The said order clearly records that the applicants could not be appointed as Executive Engineers on regular basis owing to persistent litigation and, therefore, their claim for grant of second and third TBPS in the grade of Superintending Engineer was rejected as being inconsistent with the applicable policy.
Learned Sr. counsel thus contended that the action of the respondents is strictly in accordance with the applicable statutory framework and service rules and, therefore, no violation of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution is made out. No ground for interference by this Tribunal is consequently available.
On the merits, learned Sr. counsel also submitted that the impugned order dated 04.04.2025 is legally sound and fully compliant with the applicable policies governing the grant of TBPS. The Office Order dated 06.04.1999 specifically provides that the second time-bound promotional scale shall be granted to officers “who have been appointed on regular basis as per Recruitment Rules in their own right to the first promotional grade”. The applicants admittedly do not fulfil this condition, as their promotions were only on ad hoc basis and were not made through a regular DPC.
It is further submitted that, in accordance with the DTL instructions issued vide Order No.F5(11)A&G/PRC/89 dated 19.10.2001, Junior Engineers and Assistant Engineers could be considered for second and third financial upgradation to the post of Superintending Engineer only after promotion to the post of Executive Engineer on regular basis as per the Recruitment Rules. The judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. (C) No.5139/2017, while directing reconsideration in the case of William Parashar, did not overturn the applicable policy governing the grant of TBPS.
Learned Sr. counsel argued that the NDMC has conscientiously examined the applicants’ cases in the light of the dismissal of SLP (C) No.5463/2018 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and has correctly determined that the policy prerequisites for grant of TBPS cannot be waived merely on account of judicial scrutiny in a case concerning other employees. The policy itself continues to remain valid and binding. Therefore, denial of the second and third TBPS to the applicants is neither arbitrary nor illegal but is a consistent application of the established policy framework governing promotional scales within the NDMC.
Learned Sr. counsel also argued that the distinction between ad hoc promotion and regular promotion is substantive and not merely technical. Regular promotion involves rigorous assessment through a duly constituted DPC in accordance with the established Recruitment Rules. Financial benefits under special schemes cannot be granted by relaxing expressly stipulated qualifying conditions, particularly where such conditions have been prescribed to maintain the integrity of the promotional structure.
Learned Sr. counsel reiterated that no violation of Articles 14 or 16 is made out. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Budhan Choudhry & Ors. vs. State of Bihar, reported 1954 SCC OnLine SC 19, wherein the Constitution Bench held that Article 14 forbids class legislation but does not prohibit reasonable classification, provided the classification is founded on an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
It is also submitted that the allegation of colourable exercise or misuse of administrative power is categorically denied. The decisions regarding the eligibility of the applicants for TBP/DTL Scale were taken by the competent authorities after following the established departmental procedure and policy guidelines and not by any “high handed interested officials”, as alleged.
Learned Sr. counsel also argued that the apparent differential treatment between the present applicants and the applicants in OA No. 1366/2016 arises from material differences in their service records and promotional histories. Though both groups claimed similar benefits upon completion of 18/26 years of service, their individual eligibility had to be assessed separately in accordance with the applicable policy parameters. The applicants in OA No.1366/2016 were granted benefits pursuant to specific judicial directions concerning their particular circumstances, which cannot automatically be extended to all employees without individual assessment of the eligibility criteria. Further, implementation of a judicial order in a specific case does not amount to a sweeping alteration of the policy so as to make the benefit universally applicable to every employee, irrespective of distinct service conditions. The NDMC, being a statutory body, functions within a framework of checks and balances, with decisions being examined at different levels, including by the Chairman and competent committees. The comparative seniority list relied upon by the applicants does not, by itself, establish identical eligibility for promotional benefits which are contingent upon several other qualifying criteria besides seniority.
Learned Sr. counsel also submitted that so far as reliance placed by the applicants on the decision of this Tribunal in OA No.3019/2016, titled Harish Pal Singh and others vs. NDMC and others dated 15.10.2015 is concerned, the respondents have filed a Review Petition in the said OA and the same is pending for consideration before this Tribunal.
Lastly, it is prayed that the action of the respondents is just, proper and in accordance with the applicable rules and policy. The present Original Application is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed, as the applicants are not entitled to any relief whatsoever.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record as well as the judgments on which reliance is placed by the parties.
ANALYSIS
Having heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings with the assistance of the counsel for the parties, we find that the applicants were appointed as Junior Engineers (Civil)/Assistant Engineers (Civil) in the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) between May 1972 and October 1997. They were promoted to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) on ad hoc basis between December 2007 and July 2014, against the vacancies then available. The applicants had completed the requisite period of service for consideration of the 2nd/3rd Time Bound Promotional (TBP)/DTL Scale, and that the applicants claim the said benefit in the scale of Rs.37,400–67,000 with Grade Pay of Rs.8,900 on completion of 18/26 years of service. It is also not in dispute that similarly placed employees, including the applicants in OA No.1366/2016, William Parashar and others vs. NDMC and another, had raised a similar claim for grant of the 2nd TBP Scale. This Tribunal, vide Order/Judgment dated 16.02.2017, directed the respondents to reconsider their cases. The said Order/Judgment was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide Order/Judgment dated 27.07.2017 in W.P. (C) No.5139/2017, and the SLP filed by the NDMC against the said Order/Judgment was subsequently dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 30.04.2024 in SLP (Civil) No.5463/2018.
It is evident that the present applicants had earlier approached this Tribunal by filing OA No.3921/2017, A.K. Pathak and others vs. NDMC and another, wherein, vide Order/Judgment dated 09.11.2017, the respondents were directed to consider and decide their representations keeping in view the order dated 16.02.2017 passed in OA No.1366/2016.
When the respondents have not taken any decision pursuant to the said directions of this Tribunal, the applicants have filed CP No.663/2018 and during the pendency of the said CP, the respondents rejected their claim vide order dated 28/29.05.2019. Since the respondents passed the said order, the said Contempt Petition was closed by this Tribunal vide Order/Judgment dated 31.05.2019 upon noticing that the respondents had passed an order in compliance with the directions contained in the order dated 9.11.2017. Thereafter the applicants had challenged the said rejection before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No.1349/2020, which was disposed of on 11.09.2024 with a direction to the respondents to pass fresh orders in view of the dismissal of SLP (Civil) No.5463/2018 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In compliance thereof, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 04.04.2025, whereby the claim of the applicants for grant of the 2nd/3rd TBP/DTL Scale was again rejected.
It is further not in dispute that the respondents do not deny the existence of the applicable TBP/DTL Scheme or the prescribed scales claimed by the applicants. The principal dispute between the parties is as to whether the applicants, whose promotions to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) were on ad hoc basis and were not followed by regular promotion through DPC, fulfil the conditions prescribed for grant of the 2nd/3rd TBP/DTL Scale. It is also an admitted position that the applicants rely upon the benefit extended to the employees in OA No.1366/2016 and contended that they are similarly situated, whereas the respondents maintain that the benefit granted pursuant to the judicial proceedings in that case was confined to the parties therein and cannot be extended automatically to the present applicants without independent satisfaction of the eligibility conditions under the applicable policy.
We have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. The controversy, in substance, is whether the applicants, who were appointed as Junior Engineers/Assistant Engineers (Civil), completed the requisite length of service and were thereafter promoted as Executive Engineers (Civil) on ad hoc basis against available vacancies, can be denied the 2nd/3rd Time Bound Promotional Scale/DTL Scale merely on the ground that their promotions as Executive Engineers were described as ad hoc, particularly when similarly situated employees, including the applicants in OA No.1366/2016, have been extended the said benefit pursuant to aforesaid order passed by this Tribunal, has attained finality.
At the outset, the objection of the respondents that no enforceable right has accrued to the applicants is not acceptable. It is true that, in exercise of judicial review, the Tribunal ordinarily examines the legality of the decision-making process rather than substituting its own decision for that of the administrative authority. However, such restraint cannot be invoked to sustain an administrative decision, which ignores a binding judicial pronouncement, proceeds upon a consideration which has already been rejected in litigation between the same parties, or results in hostile discrimination between employees who are otherwise similarly situated. The present case is not one where the Tribunal is being invited merely to substitute its view for that of the competent authority; rather, the question is whether the respondents could lawfully deny to the applicants a benefit on the very ground which has already been judicially examined in the case of their similarly placed colleagues in the matter of William Parashar (supra).
The basic framework of the TBP Scheme is also not in serious dispute. The Office Order dated 06.04.1999 contemplated financial upgradation with a view to alleviate stagnation. The first TBP was available on completion of the prescribed period of service and the second TBP on completion of 18 years of service, subject to the conditions contained in the Scheme. The respondents, therefore, cannot contend that the applicants have invoked a benefit wholly unknown to the service structure. The real dispute is confined to the effect of their ad hoc promotion as Executive Engineers and the consequences flowing from the decision rendered in OA No.1366/2016. In OA No.1366/2016, William Parashar and others vs. NDMC and another (supra), this Tribunal considered the very question arising from the denial/withdrawal of the 2nd TBP Scale on account of the applicants therein having been promoted as Executive Engineers on ad hoc basis. By Order/Judgment dated 16.02.2017, this Tribunal directed reconsideration of the cases in the light of its findings as quoted above. The respondents challenged the said Order/Judgment before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No.5139/2017. The Hon’ble High Court, vide judgment dated 27.07.2017, declined to interfere and expressly observed that the relief granted by the Tribunal was also founded upon just and equitable considerations, as is evident from the observations of the Hon'ble High Court as quoted above. The NDMC thereafter carried the matter to the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of SLP (Civil) No.5463/2018, which came to be dismissed on 30.04.2024. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court has attained finality.
The respondents seek to overcome the aforesaid position by contending that the decision in OA No.1366/2016 was confined to the five applicants therein and did not declare the relevant policy invalid or confer a universal benefit upon all employees. There can be no dispute with the general proposition that a judgment rendered on the peculiar facts of a case does not automatically obliterate every distinction between different employees. Equally, a person who claims parity must establish that he is similarly situated in all material respects. However, that proposition does not assist the respondents in the present case. The applicants have placed on record comparative particulars showing their dates of appointment, dates of ad hoc promotion as Executive Engineer and the dates on which the 2nd/3rd TBP/DTL benefits became due. The respondents have not demonstrated any material distinction in the nature of appointment, cadre, promotional channel, length of service or circumstances in which the applicants in OA No.1366/2016 were granted the benefit. Indeed, the respondents’ own case proceeds on the same premise, namely, that the applicants’ claim is governed by the very same TBP/DTL Scheme and that their promotions as Executive Engineers were ad hoc. The very said plea was also raised by the respondents in the case of William Parashar (supra), which was not accepted by this Tribunal which was attained finality
The law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on this aspect is well settled. In Amrit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, reported in (1975) 4 SCC 714, the Supreme Court held that equality of opportunity in service matters requires equal treatment of persons similarly situated and that, when a person has approached the Court and obtained a declaration of law in his favour, others similarly situated should ordinarily receive the benefit without being compelled to institute separate proceedings. The said principle was reiterated in K.I. Shephard and others v. Union of India and others, reported in (1987) 4 SCC 431, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held, in substance, that there was no justification for penalising employees who had not themselves approached the Court and that similarly situated employees were entitled to the same benefit. The principle is, therefore, not that every judgment automatically becomes a judgment in rem, but that an authority cannot consciously perpetuate discriminatory treatment between persons who are found to constitute the same class and are governed by the same legal position.
The respondents’ reliance upon the distinction between in personam and in rem decisions is, therefore, misplaced in the facts of the present case. The applicants are not seeking to enforce the judgment in OA No.1366/2016 as strangers to an unrelated adjudication. They assert an independent right to equal treatment under Articles 14 and 16 on the basis that they belong to the same class and are governed by the same scheme and factual circumstances. The respondents were, in any event, parties to the entire chain of litigation culminating in the dismissal of SLP (Civil) No.5463/2018. Having accepted the finality of that litigation and extended the benefit to the employees concerned, the respondents cannot, without any legally sustainable distinction, deny the same treatment to employees identically placed.
The respondents’ further contention that the Tribunal’s order dated 16.02.2017 merely directed reconsideration and did not itself declare the ad hoc promotions to be regular promotions also cannot be accepted as a basis for rejecting the present claim. The order of the Tribunal has to be read in the context of the findings recorded therein, the subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble High Court dated 27.07.2017 and the dismissal of the NDMC’s SLP by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 30.04.2024. The respondents cannot revive, in the guise of a fresh administrative order, an objection which formed the very foundation of the earlier litigation and which stood rejected in the judicial process.
Significantly, the Hon’ble High Court, while disposing of W.P. (C) No.1349/2020, preferred by the present applicants, on 11.09.2024, specifically took note of the dismissal of SLP (Civil) No.5463/2018 and directed the respondents to pass fresh orders. The respondents accordingly passed the impugned order dated 04.04.2025. The very purpose of the remand was to reconsider the applicants’ claim in the changed legal position consequent upon the dismissal of the SLP. It was not an invitation to the respondents to mechanically reiterate the same objections, which had earlier formed the basis of rejection. Once the SLP had been dismissed, the principal circumstance relied upon in the order dated 28/29.05.2019 pendency of the challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court ceased to exist.
We are also unable to accept the submission that the impugned order dated 04.04.2025 constitutes a fresh and independent consideration merely because it contains a more elaborate recital of the respondents’ policy position. A reasoned order is not necessarily a legally sustainable order. Where the reasons assigned are founded upon an interpretation which is inconsistent with the final judicial determination governing the same controversy, elaboration of the same reasoning does not cure the defect.
The respondents have repeatedly relied upon the requirement under the Office Order dated 06.04.1999 that, in the case of Class-I officers, the second TBP is to be granted to an officer appointed on regular basis to the first promotional grade. We do not dispute that the terms of a financial upgradation scheme ordinarily have to be complied with. However, the respondents cannot isolate this condition from the factual and legal context in which the applicants’ promotions were made. The applicants’ case is precisely that their regular promotion was delayed because the DPCs were not convened in time and that, against clear vacancies and after following the prescribed procedure, they were promoted on ad hoc basis and continued to discharge the duties of Executive Engineer. The fact that the respondents themselves permitted the applicants to work against the promotional posts for substantial periods cannot be used as a weapon to deny them the financial consequences which similarly situated employees have received.
The respondents’ assertion that the delay in convening the DPCs was caused by litigation initiated by members of the Engineering Cadre also does not furnish a valid answer to the applicants’ claim. Even assuming that litigation contributed to the delay, the applicants cannot be made to suffer indefinitely for the absence of timely regular promotion when they were otherwise eligible, were promoted against available vacancies and actually discharged the duties attached to the promotional post. The principle that an employee should not suffer for an administrative lapse has particular relevance where the employee has no control over the constitution or convening of the DPC. In this context, the subsequent decision of this Tribunal in Harish Pal Singh and others v. NDMC, OA No.3019/2016, assumes considerable persuasive significance. The proceedings in that case concerned, inter alia, the grievance arising from prolonged ad hoc promotion and the effect of delay in regularisation. This Tribunal has recognised that where employees have continuously discharged the functions of the promotional post and the delay in regular promotion is attributable to the administrative process, the mere nomenclature of the initial promotion order cannot, by itself, determine the substantive entitlement. The judgment has also noticed the earlier decision in William Parashar (supra) and the fact that the latter judgment of the Hon’ble High Court had attained finality after dismissal of the SLP.
We are conscious of the submission of learned Senior counsel for the respondents that a Review Petition is stated to be pending against the decision in Harish Pal Singh (supra). Mere pendency of a review petition, however, does not efface the judgment unless the same has been stayed, modified or recalled. More importantly, our conclusion in the present case does not rest solely upon Harish Pal Singh (supra). It principally rests upon the binding judicial history commencing from OA No.1366/2016, followed by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. (C) No.5139/2017 and the dismissal of the SLP by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The respondents have also relied upon Budhan Choudhry (supra) to contend that Article 14 does not prohibit reasonable classification. There is no dispute with that proposition. Article 14 permits reasonable classification based upon an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. However, the respondents have not identified any intelligible differentia, which can legitimately distinguish the present applicants from the applicants in OA No.1366/2016. Both sets of employees belong to the same Engineering Cadre, are governed by the same TBP/DTL Scheme, had similar service histories and were promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on ad hoc basis. The respondents’ distinction rests essentially upon the fact that one group litigated earlier and obtained relief. That, by itself, cannot constitute a rational basis for continuing differential treatment.
Indeed, the principle of equality operates with particular force in such circumstances. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that similarly situated employees should not be placed at a disadvantage merely because some of them approached the Court earlier. In State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC 747, and the line of cases following Amrit Lal Berry (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recognised the principle that service jurisprudence requires similarly situated persons to be treated similarly, subject to the recognised limitations of delay, laches and acquiescence. No such disabling circumstance is present here. The applicants have not remained passive for decades and thereafter sought to take advantage of a judgment obtained by somebody else. On the contrary, the applicants themselves approached this Tribunal in OA No.3921/2017, obtained above noted directions on 09.11.2017, pursued contempt proceedings when the directions were not complied with, and thereafter challenged the rejection before the Hon’ble High Court. The Hon’ble High Court, vide Order/Judgment dated 11.09.2024, specifically directed fresh consideration after the said SLP had been dismissed. The present OA has been instituted against the fresh rejection dated 04.04.2025. The plea of limitation, therefore, cannot be employed to defeat the present challenge to the fresh cause of action arising from the impugned order dated 04.04.2025.
The respondents’ reliance upon the order dated 31.05.2019 closing the said contempt petition is equally of no avail. The Tribunal, while closing the said contempt proceedings, merely recorded that once an order had been passed in purported compliance with the earlier direction, contempt could not be said to subsist. Closure of contempt proceedings did not amount to adjudication upon the substantive correctness of the rejection order dated 28/29.05.2019. Indeed, the subsequent proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court demonstrate that the substantive grievance remained open and that fresh consideration was required after the dismissal of the SLP.
We are also unable to accept the proposition that the respondents are entitled to rely upon their own previous administrative interpretation of the Scheme notwithstanding admittedly the final judicial determination concerning the same subject matter. Administrative authorities are undoubtedly entitled to interpret and implement service rules in the first instance. However, once a competent judicial forum has authoritatively determined the legal position and the challenge to such determination has failed, the administrative authority is bound to give effect to the legal position so declared. The doctrine of judicial discipline does not permit an authority to sit in appeal over a judicial determination by repeating the very reasoning which was the subject matter of adjudication.
The contention that grant of the benefit to the applicants would amount to relaxation of the Recruitment Rules is also not persuasive. The applicants are not seeking appointment to the post of Executive Engineer de hors the Recruitment Rules. They had already been appointed/promoted and had discharged the functions of the said post. Their claim is for financial upgradation under the TBP/DTL Scheme, on parity with similarly situated employees. The question, therefore, is not whether the Tribunal can direct appointment contrary to the Recruitment Rules, but whether the respondents can deny the financial benefit to one group while extending it to another group governed by the same scheme and possessing materially identical service particulars.
We may also note that the respondents have not disputed that the applicants had completed the requisite length of service. Nor have they established that any applicant suffered from an individual disqualification which would distinguish his case from the employees in OA No.1366/2016. The comparative chart placed on record, coupled with the admitted service history, sufficiently establishes the material similarity. Once such parity is demonstrated, the burden lies upon the respondents to show a lawful and rational basis for differential treatment. That burden has not been discharged by the respondents.
The impugned order dated 04.04.2025, therefore, cannot be sustained insofar as it rejects the applicants’ claim by once again treating the ad hoc nature of their promotion as an absolute bar to the grant of the 2nd/3rd TBP/DTL Scale. Such an approach effectively nullifies the benefit flowing from the judicial determination, which has attained finality. It also results in an anomalous situation where employees, who were similarly situated have received the benefit, whereas the present applicants are denied the same benefit solely because they were required to pursue a separate round of litigation.
We accordingly hold that the applicants are entitled to be treated at par with the applicants in OA No.1366/2016, William Parashar and others, for the purpose of grant of the 2nd/3rd TBP/DTL Scale, subject to verification of their individual service particulars and the actual date from which each applicant became eligible under the Scheme. The benefit shall be worked out on the same terms and conditions as were applicable to the employees in OA No.1366/2016 and in accordance with the final judicial orders passed in that litigation.
In the result, for the foregoing reasons, the present OA is allowed in the following terms:-
The impugned order dated 04.04.2025 (Annexure A-1) is quashed and set aside to the aforesaid extent;
The respondents are directed to extend to the applicants the benefit of the 2nd/3rd TBP/DTL Scale in the scale of Rs.37,400–67,000 with Grade Pay of Rs.8,900, on completion of the requisite 18/26 years of service, as the case may be, on the same terms as extended to the applicants in OA No.1366/2016, with all consequential benefits, including consequential fixation of pay and arrears, subject to adjustment of any financial upgradation or benefit already granted for the same period; and
The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. The applicants shall thereafter be paid the consequential monetary benefits within a further period of two months.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Before parting with this Order, we deem it appropriate to quote the paras 11 to 14 of the impugned order dated 04.04.2025, which read as under:-
"11.Whereas the NDMC had been constantly defending the litigations being filed one after another challenging the seniority and dispute between diploma and degree holders of the Engineering Cadre before the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the series of litigations from the Engineers of Civil Engineering Department that have persistently blocked the efforts of the NDMC to conduct DPC for regular promotion to Executive Engineer has not been taken into consideration by the Hon'ble Courts;
12.Whereas the Hon'ble High Court has disposed of the Writ Petition No. WPC 5139/2017 & CM No. 21916-17/2017 in the case of William Parashar ignoring the fact that as per applicable policy on grant of TBPS issued vide Office Order dated 05.04.1999, the benefit of financial upgradation could not be granted to the Central Administrative TribunalExecutive Engineer (ad hoc)/Superintending Engineers (CDC) without them being appointed on regular basis as Executive Engineer;
13.Whereas the Hon'ble High Court while directing in its judgment in W.P. No.5139/2017 to reconsider the grant of 2nd TBPS (Time Bound Promotional Pay Scale) to Class I Engineers on the basis of period of service rendered on ad-hoc promotion or current duty charge (CDC) basis, has not overturned/challenged the applicable policy of grant of TBPS which do not allow the benefit of financial upgradation to the Executive Engineer (ad hoc)/Superintending Engineers (CDC) without them being appointed on regular basis as Executive Engineer;
14.Now, therefore, considering all the relevant facts in the case of the petitioners, including the substantive fact that the petitioners could not be appointed as Executive Engineer on regular basis, due to the persistent litigations, the claim of the petitioners for grant of 2nd TBPS in the grade of Superintending Engineer, is rejected, as being inconsistent with the laid down policy. This Order is being issued in compliance of the Hon'ble High Court, Delhi, Order dated 11.09.2024 in WP (C) 1349/2020 (A.K. Pathak & Ors. vs NDMC)"
(emphasis supplied)
The aforesaid reasoning adopted by the respondents as highlighted above, in our considered view, amounts to a virtual defiance of the Order/Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court. Once the Hon'ble High Court, vide Order/Judgment dated 27.07.2017 in W.P. (C) No.5139/2017, upheld the Order/Judgment of this Tribunal dated 16.02.2017 in OA No.1366/2016 and directed reconsideration of the claim of the employees for grant of 2nd TBPS by taking into consideration the period of service rendered on ad hoc promotion/current duty charge basis, the respondents could not have proceeded on the premise that the very policy condition which had been relied upon to deny the benefit continued to constitute an absolute bar. The subsequent dismissal of SLP (Civil) No.5463/2018 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 30.04.2024 further rendered the Order/Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court final and binding upon the respondents. Therefore, while the respondents were certainly required to undertake the exercise of reconsideration in terms of the order dated 11.09.2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. (C) No.1349/2020, they could not, under the guise of such reconsideration, revive and reiterate the very objection, which stood considered in the earlier round of litigation. The language employed in paragraphs 12 to 14 of the impugned order, particularly, the assertion that the Hon'ble High Court had proceeded by “ignoring” the applicable TBPS policy, is wholly impermissible for an administrative authority subordinate to the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court. The respondents were bound to give effect to the Order/Judgment as it stood and were not competent to sit in appeal over, question, or indirectly nullify the judicial determination. Such an approach not only defeats the doctrine of judicial discipline but also renders the subsequent exercise of reconsideration illusory and, in substance, amounts to non-compliance with the binding directions of the Hon'ble High Court.
In above circumstances, we direct respondent No.1 to be careful while handling such matters as such indiscipline tantamount to suo moto contempt. Director (Personnel-II), NDMC, Palika Kendra, 3rd Floor, New Delhi-110001, who is the authority, which has issued the impugned order dated 04.04.2025 and endorsed a copy thereof to all the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.1349/2020, despite the binding judicial directions, he has acted in disregard thereof and committed contempt of the rule of law. He is a defiant officer, who does not understand the binding nature of judicial orders of the Hon’ble High Courts or the manner in which such orders are required to be implemented. Respondent No.1/competent authority shall consider initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the above mentioned Director (Personnel-II), NDMC, besides making an entry in his APAR for the year 2026-2027 (01.04.2026 to 31.03.2027).
Registry is directed to send a copy of this Order to respondent No.1 by speed post, who will take action within the above-mentioned period of three months and file an affidavit of compliance within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.