Kalu Ram Saini v. Govind Mohan And Others

$~110 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 564/2025 KALU RAM SAINI .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. P. Sureshan, Advocate.

versus GOVIND MOHAN AND OTHERS .....Respondents Through:

Ms. Arti Bansal, CGSC for UOI.

Insp. Sanjay Kumar, CISF along with SI Atul Sen, SI Manju Natha and ASI Amit Kumar Verma, CISF.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA % 18.03.2026

O R D E R

1.

The present petition alleges wilful disobedience of the directions contained in the judgment / order dated 07.01.2025 passed in W.P.(C) 9899/2019. The operative directions contained therein are as under: "29. We, therefore, direct as follows: - a) The UPSC/CISF shall declare the petitioner as finally selected for the recruitment to the post of Assistant Commandant (Exe) through the LDCE-2019, and issue him an offer of appointment for the said post within a period of four weeks.

b) The petitioner shall be entitled to and shall be granted retrospective seniority just above the respondent no.4 and other consequential benefits, along with his batchmates; however, he shall not be entitled to any pay or allowances for the period he has not worked as an Assistant Commandant (Exe).

c) The appointment of the respondent no.4 shall also not be disturbed due to appointment of the petitioner."

2.

The controversy which led to the aforesaid directions was the petitioner's non-selection for the post of Assistant Commandant (Executive) The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

in the Limited Department Competitive Examination (LDCE)-2019. 3.

Despite securing 369 marks - identical to the last recommended candidate (Respondent No. 4), the petitioner was excluded based on a tiebreaking formula applied by the UPSC, which accorded preference to higher marks in one of the papers.

4.

The petitioner contended that, in the absence of a pre-notified tiebreaking criterion, seniority in age ought to govern the inter se merit, a principle recognised in prior judicial precedents. 5.

In the above backdrop, the petitioner's writ petition came to be allowed and the aforesaid directions were issued. 6.

After the aforesaid directions were issued, the petitioner was issued an appointment letter in terms of directions contained in Paragraph 29 (a) of the aforesaid order dated 07.01.2025, and the petitioner thereafter physically joined as Assistant Commandant (Exe.) on 26.07.2025 at the National Industrial Security Academy (NISA), Hyderabad. 7.

While the respondents have confirmed that the petitioner's seniority shall be fixed just above respondent no. 4, the petitioner remains aggrieved by the non-grant of consequential benefits, inasmuch as his pay is not at par with that of respondent no. 4, despite being ranked higher in the seniority list.

8.

In a compliance affidavit filed on 09.12.2025, the respondents sought to urge that the petitioner's pay had been adjusted with annual increments as if he had joined in 2019. The compliance affidavit, inter alia, states as under:- The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

9.

An additional affidavit came to be filed by the respondents pursuant to the directions contained in the order dated 12.12.2025 passed in these proceedings, in view of the contention of the petitioner regarding his pay being lower than the pay being given to the respondent no.4. In the said affidavit, it has been stated as under:- 10.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the non-grant of consequential benefits, inasmuch as the salary paid to him is lower than that of respondent No. 4. 11.

It is submitted that reason/ justification cited in the above quoted Paragraph 6 of the Additional Affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents is unmerited.

12.

There is merit in the petitioner's contention that the grant of consequential benefits necessarily requires that he not be placed at a disadvantage in the matter of pay fixation as compared to respondent No. 4; otherwise, the very purport of granting such benefits would stand defeated. 13.

The reasons cited in the afore-quoted paragraph 6 are not attributable to the petitioner; rather, they stem from the petitioner having been compelled to approach this Court due to the manner in which the respondents conducted the selection process.

14.

The petitioner having succeeded in his challenge and having been The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

granted consequential benefits cannot be discriminated in the matter of fixation of pay qua the respondent no.4. This clearly flows from the directions contained in Paragraph 29 (b) of the judgment dated 07.01.2025 in W.P.(C) 9899/2019, which expressly mandate that the petitioner shall be granted retrospective seniority just above Respondent No. 4, along with all consequential benefits.

15.

It is incongruous to grant seniority to the petitioner above the respondent no.4 but to give a lower pay to the petitioner vis-a-vis respondent no.4.

16.

In the circumstances, the respondents are directed to fix the petitioner's pay at par with that of respondent no. 4, thereby granting him the consequential benefits in terms of paragraph 29(b) of the judgment dated 07.01.2025.

17.

Let the needful be done within a period of eight weeks from today. 18.

The petition is disposed of in the above terms. In case there is any omission on the part of the respondents in implementing the aforesaid directions, the petitioner shall be entitled to revive the present petition. SACHIN DATTA, J MARCH 18, 2026/r The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.