Court sets aside order, denies back wages, approves notional promotion.

The court allowed the petition, setting aside the order dated 31st March, 2010, by the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, New Delhi. The respondent's request for back wages was denied, and it was held that the notional promotion granted to the respondent was appropriate under the circumstances.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Propriety, validity, and correctness of the order dated 31st March, 2010 by the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, New Delhi.
2. Eligibility and consideration for promotion of the respondent to the grade of Upper Divisional Clerk (UDC) and Inspector.
3. Application of reservation and benefits for persons with disabilities in promotions.
4. Entitlement to financial benefits from the date of notional promotion.
5. Jurisdiction of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities in service matters.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Propriety, Validity, and Correctness of the Order Dated 31st March, 2010 by the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, New Delhi:
The petitioner questioned the propriety, validity, and correctness of the order dated 31st March, 2010, passed by the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, New Delhi. The court found that the tribunal did not consider all relevant aspects and prevailing circumstances, leading to the conclusion that the impugned decision was not sustainable on facts and circumstances. The order was set aside.

2. Eligibility and Consideration for Promotion of the Respondent to the Grade of UDC and Inspector:
The respondent joined as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on 31st May, 1993. According to the 1979 recruitment rules, LDCs were eligible for promotion to UDC after seven years. The respondent was promoted to UDC on 23rd August, 1999, following a relaxation of the seven-year service requirement. For promotion to Inspector, a five-year service as UDC was required, making the respondent eligible in August 2004. However, due to restructuring in 2003, promotional posts were reduced, affecting his eligibility. The respondent was eventually given notional promotion to Inspector with effect from 6th December, 2002, following a review DPC on 13th January, 2009.

3. Application of Reservation and Benefits for Persons with Disabilities in Promotions:
The respondent, a person with disabilities, claimed he was ignored for promotion despite being eligible under the reserved quota. The tribunal noted that other persons with disabilities were promoted, and the respondent was not considered despite his eligibility. The court, however, found that the respondent was given notional promotion in line with others and that there was no deliberate attempt to exclude him from promotion.

4. Entitlement to Financial Benefits from the Date of Notional Promotion:
The respondent sought financial benefits from the date of his notional promotion. The court observed that notional promotions do not entitle employees to back wages unless they have actually worked in the promoted post. The principle of "no work, no pay" was upheld, and the respondent was not granted financial benefits from the notional date of promotion, consistent with the treatment of other promoted officers.

5. Jurisdiction of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities in Service Matters:
The petitioner argued that the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities does not have the jurisdiction to entertain service matters and pass orders like the impugned one. The court found merit in this argument, noting that the tribunal's order did not adequately consider the jurisdictional limitations and relevant service rules.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition, setting aside the order dated 31st March, 2010, by the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, New Delhi. The respondent's request for back wages was denied, and it was held that the notional promotion granted to the respondent was appropriate under the circumstances. The rule was made absolute in these terms.

---