High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/1039/2016

Ranjeet Tripathi & ORS v. Sashastra Seema Bal

2017-08-23Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna,Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla2 pages

$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1039/2016 RANJEET TRIPATHI & ORS ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Praveen Aggarwal, Advocate.

versus SASHASTRA SEEMA BAL ..... Respondent Through Ms. Kailash Golani, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

O R D E R

% 23.08.2017 The present writ petition has to be dismissed in view of judgement of this Court in W.P.(C) 3420/2010, R. S. Sengor and Others versus Union of India and Others dated 4th April, 2011, and W.P.(C) 5082/2013 Swaran Pal Singh and Others versus Union of India and Others dated 17th March, 2015. More recently this issue arose for adjudication in W.P.(C) 9266/2015, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Another versus S.K. Saraswat and Others delivered on 9th May,2016 and W.P.(C) 9109/2015 Union of India and Others versus D.S. Rawat and Others dated 16th August,2016 before a Bench of which one of us (Sanjiv Khanna, J.) was a member. In these decisions, it has been held that financial upgradation as per the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme implemented

by O.M dated 19th May, 2009 envisages mere placement in the immediate next higher Grade Pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised Pay Band and Grade Pay as given in Section I, Part-A of the first schedule of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. The financial upgradation has no relevance to the Grade Pay applicable to the next promotional post. This is a distinction between the Assured Career Progression Scheme introduced in 1998 and which was applicable till the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme was introduced and implemented vide office memorandum dated 19th May, 2009.

We are bound by the aforesaid ratio and in these circumstances cannot follow the ratio of the decision dated 31st August, 2016 in W.P.(C) 28431/2013, H.B.L. Meena and others versus Union of India and others decided by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed. SANJIV KHANNA, J.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

AUGUST 23, 2017 MR