Daya Ram vs Delhi Development Authority

L. Narasimha, Reddy, J

This is one of the oldest OAs pending before the Tribunal, and it has undergone 35 adjournments. However, uniformly, there was no representation for the applicants. Today also, except that a proxy counsel made request for adjournment, no proper assistance is forthcoming. Therefore, we have chosen to go through the file and decide the matter.

The applicants joined the service of Delhi Development Authority (for short, DDA), the respondent herein. The benefit of ACP was extended to them in terms of the scheme introduced by the Government through OM dated 09.08.1999, which, in turn, was adopted by the respondent.

The grievance of the applicants is that the 1st and 2 nd ACP was ought to have been granted to them in a higher scale i.e. on par with the post of Mali. On a representation submitted by them, the respondents passed an order dated 11.05.2012, informing them that they joined the service as Khallasis and taking into account the hierarchy in the Organisation, ACPs were granted to them. The same is challenged in this OA.

The applicants contend that they are entitled to be extended the 1st and 2nd ACP, on par with the post of Mali.

The respondents filed counter affidavit opposing the OA. It is stated that the applicants did not hold the post of Mali and in that view of the matter, the question of extending the 1st and 2nd ACP, admissible for the post of Mali to them, does not arise.

The ACP is a scheme whereunder, an employee who, did not get the promotion to a higher post for a period of 12 years either for want of vacancy or absence of promotional avenues, would be entitled to be extended the benefit of a higher scale of pay, which is almost on par with that of promotion. Similarly, if the stagnation continues in the next spell of 12 years, 2nd ACP is granted. This scheme was replaced by the MACP. The period thereunder is 10 years, 20 years and 30 years and conditions are slightly different.

It is not the case of the applicants that they were not extended the benefit of ACP at all. However, they want ACP admissible for the post of Mali. In clear and categorical terms, the respondents have stated in the impugned order that the applicants were appointed as Khallasis and held those very posts when the ACP was extended. At one stage of hearing, this Court directed the applicants to place the necessary material to indicate that they held the post of Mali or equivalent. Nothing of that sort is forthcoming.

We do not find any merit in the OA and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.