Case Title: GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Versus JAY PRAKASH SOJA
Case No: WP No. W.P.(C) 4640/2021
Decided on: 28th March , 2024
Quorum: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
Facts of the case
The case concerns a writ petition (W.P.(C) 4640/2021) against Jay Prakash Soja that was filed by the Government of the NCT of Delhi & Ors. Jay Prakash Soja, the respondent, began his service on October 18, 2004. The disagreement stemmed from the respondent’s senior scale being awarded to them according to the standards outlined in notices dated 30.12.1999 and 05.03.2010. The respondent’s original application (O.A.) was accepted by the Central Administrative Tribunal, which ruled that the respondent could not be retrospectively affected by the senior scale changes implemented on March 5, 2010, if they had started their employment before then. In its ruling on March 28, 2024, the Delhi High Court returned the matter to the Tribunal for new adjudication, giving the respondent the opportunity to prove his discrimination defense and provide the revised OA in four weeks.
Issues
- Was it incorrect for the Central Administrative Tribunal to evaluate the respondent for senior scale using the standards that were in effect in 2004 instead of the revised standards that were implemented in 2010?
- Did the Tribunal give enough weight to the respondent’s allegations of discrimination and unjustified appointment delay?
- Can the employer modify the promotion standards and apply them consistently to all workers, including the respondent?
- In light of the respondent’s allegation of discrimination, was the High Court of Delhi correct to reverse the Tribunal’s ruling and remand the case for additional consideration?
Legal Provisions
Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution, under which the writ petition (W.P.(C) 4640/2021) was brought in an attempt to overturn the Central Administrative Tribunal’s decision [T5], are among the pertinent legal provisions in this case. The notification dated 30.12.1999, which detailed the requirements, including six years of service [T6], for senior scale consideration. The announcement from March 5, 2010, which modified the standards for senior scale evaluation and increased the duration of service to nine years for applicants without a Ph.D. or master’s degree [T3]. The idea that a company may alter its promotion standards as needed, provided that the modification is fair and consistent for all workers in comparable circumstances [T2].
Appellant Contentions
The respondent should have been evaluated for senior scale according to the standards in effect when he joined the service in 2004 rather than the revised standards that were implemented in 2010 [T4], according to the appellant, who claimed that the Central Administrative Tribunal’s ruling was incorrect. The appellant argued that employees do not have a vested right to claim promotion based on criteria in effect at the time of their employment and that promotion criteria are subject to modify at any time by the employer [T4]. The appellant stressed that the senior scale criteria should be applied consistently to all employees and that the change was not capricious. As a result, the respondent ought to be evaluated in accordance with the revised standards that were implemented in 2010 [T4].
Respondent Contentions
The respondent said that since he had enlisted in the military in 2004 [T4], the revised senior scale requirements that were implemented after his enlistment should not be applied to him retrospectively. The respondent claimed that earlier in 2004 he was prepared to enlist, but the petitioner caused a delay in his enlistment, and by the time he did, the new requirements had been implemented [T4]. The respondent emphasized that he should be treated equally and without discrimination, since three of his cohort mates had received the senior scale benefit according to the announcement dated 30.12.1999 [T4]. The claim made by the respondent that he was the victim of discrimination and that his appointment was unjustly postponed should be taken into account during the decision-making process
Court Analysis and Judgement
After considering the arguments put up by the respondent and the appellant, the Delhi High Court rendered the following rulings: The Court stated that the employer may alter promotion standards as needed, provided that the modification is implemented consistently to all employees in comparable circumstances and is not capricious [T6]. The Central Administrative Tribunal’s ruling, which evaluated the respondent in accordance with the standards in effect at the time of his 2004 enlistment, was deemed unsustainable by the Court. The respondent’s claim for senior scale should be taken into account in accordance with the revised criteria that were implemented in 2010 [T6], the Court stressed. Although the Court overturned the Tribunal’s ruling, it accepted the respondent’s claim of discrimination and improper appointment delay, which the Tribunal [T6] did not sufficiently take into account. The respondent was given four weeks to establish his plea of discrimination and file an updated OA after the Court remanded the case to the Tribunal for new adjudication. The Court instructed the Tribunal to try to reach a decision on the matter in less than six months [T5] [T6] by taking into account the current order issued by the High Court. Ultimately, the respondent’s allegation of discrimination and the necessity for a new ruling based on the revised senior scale criteria led the Delhi High Court to reverse the Tribunal’s ruling and remand the case for additional consideration.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace
Click here to view the judgement
