Delhi HC allows plea of its Readers seeking pay upgradation

The Delhi High Court, on Wednesday, allowed the petition of two men working as Readers at the court itself, complaining of unjustified denial of third financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS)..The petitioners had joined the establishment of the High Court initially in the cadre of Upper Division Clerk [UDC] from which they were promoted to the cadre of Reader..The petitioners challenged an order of the Screening Committee of the High Court, which rejected their claim for third financial upgradation..In terms of the MACPS, an employee is entitled to assured career progression at 10-year intervals. Thus, the first financial upgradation is after 10 years of service, the second after 20 years of service and the third, on completion of 30 years of service..The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Jyoti Singh, claimed that upon completion of 30 years of service, given that they were promoted only twice in their careers, the third upgradation assured to them under the MACPS should be granted..They also complained of discrimination, as their counterparts in the District Courts had been granted the relief due to the administrative decision of the District Judge..Appearing for the Delhi High Court, Advocate Sanjay Ghose argued that the decision whether to grant or deny the pay benefit is a matter of executive policy based upon an interpretation given by the concerned agency or department..“In the present case, the Screening Committee, which considered the petitioners’ representations, rendered its conclusions by an elaborate and reasoned order. There is no flaw in the reasoning or conclusions calling for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.”.The Division Bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and SP Garg observed that,.“It is noticed that the petitioners’ counterparts were granted the third financial upgradation, they perform similar, if not identical functions. UOI v. FC Jain is an authority that if such broadly identical functions are involved, both categories ought to be treated alike in regard to interpretation of pay norms, by the organization. Therefore, the principle of parity would result in acceptance of the petitioner’s claim.”.The Court allowed the petition and directed the Registrar General to revise and fix the pay scales by granting the third financial upgradation. It was further held that the petitioners are entitled to consequential arrears and all consequential benefits and the payments shall carry interest at 9 per cent per annum. The payouts were directed to be made to the petitioners within 8 weeks..Read Judgment: