Manju Goel, J.@mdashThe petitioners are seeking financial upgradation as was assured to them vide the DDA circular dated 14.10.1999, placed on the file as Annexure-P1. This circular followed the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission. It refers to the Government of India''s Office Memo No. 35034/1/97-Estt.(D) dated 9.8.1999 and mentions financial upgradation after 12 and 24 years of regular service without creating new posts for that purpose and applicable to Group ''B'', ''C'' and ''D'' employees as well as to isolated categories of Group ''A''. This circular then requires the concerned branches of Personnel Department to identify the categories or persons eligible for the scheme and to propose their names to Deputy Director (CR) for further action. The petitioners are Senior Stenographers. They say that they were appointed in 1981 and ever since their appointment, they did not get a single promotion in their career. They claimed that they are entitled to the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP) by virtue of the adaptation by the DDA of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission, as mentioned in the Office Memo, mentioned above.
2. The respondent is not denying that these petitioners have not got any promotion ever since they joined the service of the DDA. However, their case is that during their career from 1981 till date there has been various occasions when these petitioners have got pay revisions as well as upgradation of the scale applicable to them by virtue of different orders and a judgment of this Court. The history as given by the respondent''s counsel is as under:
Prior to 1.1.1979 there were two posts of Stenographers namely Junior Stenographer and Senior Stenographer. Junior Stenographer was entitled to the scale of Rs. 330-560/- whereas the Senior Stenographer was entitled to Rs. 425-700/-. With effect from 14.2.1979 the two scales were unified to Rs. 330-700 and all the Stenographers were designated as Stenographers. With effect from 1.1.1986 there was a revision of pay scale. The Stenographers were again bifurcated into Stenographers and Senior Stenographers. Junior Stenographers were made entitled to a time bound promotion to the rank of Senior Stenographers. It may be noted here that the petitioners having joined in 1981 joined as Stenographers and in 1986 became Senior Stenographers by virtue of re-designation following the revision of pay scales. A circular to the effect dated 28.8.1992 is on the record as Annexure-P4 to the rejoinder.
3. On 13.4.1987 the scale of Senior Stenographers was converted to Rs. 1400-2600/- by virtue of a resolution of the respondent. This was done in view of the fact that the Central Government had also revised the pay scales of Stenographers. On 6.9.1996 the DDA adopted the DOPT Circular No. 2/1/90-CS.IV dated 31.7.1990. In fact, the Senior Stenographers of DDA filed a writ petition before this Court claiming the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/- on the ground that their counter-parts in the Central Government in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600/- were being given the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 w.e.f 1.1.1986 while the Stenographers in the DDA had been conferred the benefit of the scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996.
4. What is being contended by the DDA is that while the petitioners have not got any promotion ever since they joined their service in DDA, they have got the aforesaid benefits of pay revisions from time to time and further that in case they now get the benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme, they will get two steps promotion and thereby will start getting pay higher than their counter-parts in the Central Government. This certainly cannot be a ground for denying the benefit of ACP to the petitioners. Further, it is submitted by the DDA that the circular of 14.10.1999 does not say that the ACP scheme has been accepted by the DDA for all categories of employees and, Therefore, in para-3 it says "concerned branches of Personnel Department shall take necessary action to identify the categories/persons eligible for the scheme and propose their names to Deputy Director (CR) for further action." It is contended by Shri Arun Birbal, counsel for the DDA, that the DDA undertook the exercise and the category of Stenographers was excluded from the applicability of the ACP scheme for the above reasons. There is, however, nothing on record to show that the DDA had actually undertaken an exercise following para-3 to identify that the Stenographers were not eligible. The purport of para-3 was only to identify the category of persons who became entitled to ACP by virtue of the DOPT Circular dated 9.8.1999. The exercise that was to be undertaken was to locate the persons who were stagnating for 12 years or 24 years so that their names could be proposed to the Deputy Director (CR) for making necessary orders for giving them the final shape upgradation. Hence there is no force in the submission of Mr. Birbal that stenographers were excluded from the ACP Scheme. Nor has the respondent come out with any ground for refusing the benefit of the ACP scheme to the stenographers.
5. It is further submitted that in case the ACP scheme if made applicable to the Stenographers, the same will bring about a imbalance between the Stenographers and others of their rank in the Central Government as the Stenographers/ Senior Stenographers with the ACP scheme will get pay higher than those of similar rank with different designations and others with the same designation appointed prior to 1979. In my opinion, this cannot be a ground to deny the benefit of ACP to which the petitioners have become entitled to in their own right. The imbalance created, if any, by virtue of petitioners'' getting higher salary can be restored by other means.
6. The petitions are accordingly allowed. Respondent is directed to apply the ACP scheme of 1999 to the petitioners and take the necessary steps for providing them financial upgradation subject to the conditions provided in the circular of 9.8.1999.
7. Petitions are, accordingly, disposed of.
8. A copy of the order be given dusty to counsel for both the parties.
