Vinod Kumar v. Central Reserve Police Force

$~26 to 31 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11397/2021 & C.M.No.35115/2021 DARSHAN LAL ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Mukul Katyal, Advocate.

versus CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE ..... Respondent Through Mr.Vikrant N.Goyal, Advocate with Mr.Prakeeh, Sub Inspector.

+ W.P.(C) 11416/2021 & C.M.No.35142/2021 S.K. MOTIUR RAHMAN ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Mukul Katyal, Advocate.

versus CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE ..... Respondent Through Mr.Praveen Jain with Mr.Anshuman Singh, Advocates with Mr.Prakeeh, Sub Inspector.

+ W.P.(C) 11427/2021 & C.M.No.35166/2021 VINOD KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Mukul Katyal, Advocate.

versus CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE ..... Respondent Through Mr.Harish Vaidhyanathan Shankar, CGSC with Mr.Himanshu Pathak, Ms.Bushra Kazim and Mr.Rahul Mourya, Advocates with Mr.Prakeeh, Sub Inspector.

+ W.P.(C) 11428/2021 & C.M.No.35167/2021 RAMDHAN PANCHAL ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Mukul Katyal, Advocate.

versus CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE ..... Respondent Through Mr.Nirvikar Verma, Advocate with Mr.Prakeeh, Sub Inspector.

+ W.P.(C) 11429/2021 & C.M.No.35168/2021 SURENDER KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Mukul Katyal, Advocate.

versus CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE ..... Respondent Through Mr.Anil Kaushik, CGSC with Mr.Prakeeh, Sub Inspector.

+ W.P.(C) 11430/2021 & C.M.No.35169/2021 RAMAYAN RAM JAISWARA ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Mukul Katyal, Advocate.

versus CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE ..... Respondent Through Mr.Naginder Benipal, Sr.Panel Counsel for UOI with Ms.Rupali Kapoor and Ms.Harithi Kambiri, Advocates with Mr.Prakeeh, Sub Inspector.

% Date of Decision: 07th October, 2021

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA MANMOHAN, J. (Oral)

1. By way of the present petitions, the Petitioners seek directions to the Respondent to consider the present petitions as representations made by the Petitioners along with the letters addressed by them to the Respondents and to re-fix the basic pay of the Petitioners along with the arrears due to them.

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners states that the Petitioners had written letters to the Principal, Central Training College, CRPF Gwalior (M.P.), stating that the basic pay of the Petitioners were less than their contemporaries and juniors in the force and that they wanted their basic pay to be corrected.

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners states that though the basic pay of the petitioners at the time of Fifth Pay Commission was Rs. 3125/-, yet the Petitioners were being paid Rs.75/- less increment under the Fifth Pay Commission since 10th October,1997 which was effective from 01st January,1996.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners states that the basic pay of the st January, 1996, along with the arrears, petitioners should be revised from 1 taking into account the office order issued in March 2016 pursuant to the order passed by the High Court of Madras, which had directed that pay in respect of HC/GD K Khader Basa with amendment from 01.01.1996 has to be paid to him retrospectively.

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners states that Petitioners are similarly placed as K. Khader Basa, who was eligible for re-fixation of basic pay th October, 1997 and had been paid arrears of basic pay from 10

retrospectively from January, 1996, making the Petitioners in the present case eligible for revision of their basic pay from 01st January, 1996 along with arrears.

6. Issue notice.

7. Learned counsel for the Respondents accepts notice. Mr.Prakeeh, SubInspector, who is personally present in Court states that the Respondents have no objection to consider the present batch of writ petitions as representations and decide the same in accordance with law.

8. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the Petitioners states that in one of the matters being W.P.(C) No.11416/2021 titled S.K.Motiur Rahman vs. Central Reserve Police Force, the representation of the petitioners has already been rejected vide letter dated 23rd April, 2020.

9. In view of the statement made by Mr.Prakeeh, Sub-Inspector, this rd Court sets aside the letter dated 23 April, 2020 and directs the competent authority to decide the representations of the Petitioners by way of a reasoned order in accordance with law within twelve weeks. This Court clarifies that it has not commented on the merit of the controversy. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.

10. In view of the aforesaid, the present batch of writ petitions along with pending applications stand disposed of.

MANMOHAN, J NAVIN CHAWLA, J OCTOBER 07, 2021 KA