Krishan Kant Yadav And ORS v. Union Of India And ORS

$-18, 20&21 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 5953/2016 ..... Petitioner Mr.P.Sureshan, Advocate.

DUSHYANTH SINGH Represented by:

versus Respondents Mr.Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate with Mr.R.M.Tripathi, Advocate for UOI.

AND UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Represented by:

+ W.P.(C) 5975/2016 KRISHAN KANT YADAV AND ORS Petitioners Represented by:

Mr.P.Sureshan, Advocate.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Represented by:

Respondents Mr.Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate with Mr.R.M.Tripathi, Advocate for UOI.

AND + W.P.(C) 5988/2016 KSHATRIYA HARIOM SINGH AND ORS Petitioners Represented by:

Mr.P.Sureshan, Advocate.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Represented by:

Respondents Mr.Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate with Mr.R.M.Tripathi, Advocate for UOI.

JV.F.fCJ Nos.5953, 5975 & Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.

CM No.24568-69/2016 in W.P.CQ No.5953/2Q16 CM No.24620-21/2016 in W.P/C) No.5975/2016 CM No.24640-41/2016 in W.P.(C) No.5988/2016 Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.rC) No.5953/2016 W.P.rC) No.5975/2016 W.P.rC) No.5988/2016 1.

The writ petitions are drafted simply highlighting disparity in basicpay fixed post January 01, 2006 for Constables working in CISF and parity is being sought with Constables working in other Central Para-Military Forces. It is not in dispute that all constables in various Central ParaMilitary Forces are placed in PB-I. Gross salary may vary on account of additional emoluments being paid for hard postings. Similarly, there may be other benefits such as leave etc. for the reason most of the CISF personnel live with their family in family stations but those in Central Para-Military Forces are away from the family. In BSF the earned leave is of 60 days, in CISF it is 30 days. But basic pay should not. 2.

An anomaly resulting as a result of the implementation of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 which finds reflection in the Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 was brought out by a Division Bench of this Court in decision dated March 17, 2015 in W.P.(C) 5082/2013 Swaran Pal Sinsh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. The reason for the anomaly was brought out in paragraph 8 with reference to the multiplier factor of 1.8 requiring rounding off the resultant to the next multiple of 10. 3.

We find that in the writ petitions there are averments of representations being made but we find that in the representation made it is simply stated that the petitioners are being paid less basic-pay. Attention to W.P.(C) Nos.5953, 5975 &

the exact problem is not highlighted. We find that the respondents have not responded to the truncated representations made. 4.

A proper demand and its denial is the sine qua non of a mandamus to be issued and this is trite.

5.

Under the circumstances we dispose of the three above captioned petitions requesting learned counsel for the petitioners to study the decision dated March 17, 2015 and thereafter obtain necessary data from his clients and make a representation to the respondents. 6.

Once the representation is made the respondents are directed to pass a speaking order considering the decision dated March 17, 2015. 7.

Needless to state, if relief is allowed to the petitioners benefit shall be accorded retrospectively. If relief is denied, a speaking order would be required to be passed which the petitioners would be entitled to challenge. 8.

No costs.

G, J.

PRADEEP NAND 4RATIBHA RANI, J.

JULY 15, 2016 'st'

W.P. (C) Nos.5953, 5975 & 5988 of2016