RAMA NAND AND ORS. V. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

By- Ishita Pancholi

Case Name: RAMA NAND AND ORS. V. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.[1]

Judgement Date: 06/08/2020

Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., Ajay Rastogi J. and Aniruddha Bose J.

Facts

The dispute under the case is with respect to the understanding of an Office Memorandum presenting an Assured Career Progression Scheme, by which a choice was taken to allow two money related upgradations after fulfilment of 12 and 24 years of customary help separately. The appellants for this situation guaranteed first money related upgradation as on 9.8.1999 or on completion of 12 years of administration in the DFS as Telephone Operators/RTOs, however, that the equivalent were denied to them treating their change of the previously mentioned posts as a promotion.

Issue

The issue in this manner was whether their provisions as RTOs would add up to advancement or whether it was a negligible reorganisation and they were qualified for the ACP independently as far as the ACP Scheme?

Both the appellants and the State depended on an Apex Court choice in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. R. Santhakumari Velusamy[2]to fight that there is a contrast among up-gradation and advancement. The Appellants battled that the moment case isn’t ‘advancement, while the State contended that the three angles present in the moment case for example (i) prequalification of least of 5 years of administration; (ii) higher money related remittances; (iii) thorough of a specific preparing clarifies that is one which ought to be considered as the advancement with the end goal of ACP Scheme.

Judgement

Promotion may incorporate headway to a more significant salary scale without moving to an alternate post, the Supreme Court has repeated while excusing the interests recorded by Telephone Operators with the Delhi Fire Service later sent as Radio Telephone Operators.


[1] Rama Nand and Ors. v. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT Of Delhi & Anr., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 630.

[2]Sanchar Nigam Limited v. R. Santhakumari Velusamy, JT 2011 (10) SC 558, 2011 (10) SCALE 136, 2011 (5) UJ 3219 (SC).

Case Notes

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: