Jaswant Singh & ORS v. Union Of India & ORS
Signed By:RAM DATT 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.
$-16, 17& 18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 6761/2017 INSPECTOR MAHENDER SINGH + ....Petitioner Mr.K. K. Sharma, Advocate.
Through versus ....Respondents Mr.Ajay Digpaul, CGSC with Ms.Madhuri Dhingra, Advocates UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Through W.P.(C) 7716/2017 + ....Petitioners JASWANT SINGH & ORS Mr.K. K. Sharma, Advocate.
Through versus ....Respondents Mr.Suman Chauhan with Ms. Aditi Tyagi, Advocates UNION OF INDIA & ORS Through + ....Petitioners W.P.(C) 8336/2017 PRAMOD KUMAR AND ORS Mr.K. K. Sharma, Advocate.
I Through versus ....Respondents Mr. S. N. Parashar, Advocate.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Through
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
15.11.2018 %
1. These petitions seek fixation of the basic pay scale of the Petitioners at Rs. 10,230/- + Rs.4,200/- Grade Pay instead of basic pay scale at Rs.9,300/- + Rs. 4,200/- Grade Pay.
2. All these Petitioners joined the CRPF as Constables and were later promoted as Head Constables, Sub-Inspectors and thereafter Inspectors GD. The issues arise as a result of the revision of pay scales pursuant to the 5^^ Pay Commission and later, the b'*' Pay Commission.
3. The issue in these petitions is no longer res Integra. It was first considered in Gajraj Singh v. Union of India [decision dated September 2013 in W.P.(C) 4258/2013] and Suraj Bhan v. Union of India [decision dated 1 ft''October 2013 in W.P.(C) b550/2013]. Subsequently, in SI/GD Shambhu v. Union of India [decision dated ll"' October 2017 in W.P.(C) 9359/20lb], after referring to the earlier decisions, this Court interpreted Rules 5, b, and 7 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules 2008 which came into effect on January 200b and allowed those t writ petitions, issuing directions for refixing the pay scales as prayed for by those Petitioners.
4. The main objection in all these cases was that the Petitioners had not exercised their options but as noted by this Court in several decisions, they could not have exercised such options without their subsequent promotions being granted. As recently as January 2018, the Court again in another
Union of India [decision dated decision in and Jas Ram v.
12^^ January 2018 in W.P.(C) 332/2017] again followed the earlier decisions and, in the case pertaining to Sub-Inspectors of the CRPF, directed the grant of benefit of 2"'' financial upgradation in the ACP Scheme with all consequential benefits. A direction was issued to the Respondents to pass consequential orders after declaring that both the Petitioners would be entitled to clause (i) appended Rules (7)(1)(A) of the 2008 Rules.
5. The issue was recently considered by this Court in its decision in Rajbir V. Union of India [decision dated 12*^ November 2018 in Singh W.P.(C) 9893/2018] and the following observations were made: "6. The grievance in Shambhu {supra) was that, although the Respondents had correctly fixed the revised pay scale at Rs. 10,230/- by using the multiplier of 1.86 to the existing basic pay as on January 2006, subsequently they fixed at the minimum Court that the petitioners therein did not have to exercise their option under the proviso to Rule 5 on or before 3 March 2013 because the second financial upgradation benefit was given to them only in 2015.
pay band of Rs.9,300/-. It was pointed out before this
7. The Court accepted the above plea and directed that those Petitioners would be restored to the pay scale of Rs. 10,230/- plus grade pay of Rs.4,200/-.
8. The Court finds that the facts of the present case are no different. There is no reason why the present Petitioners should not be granted the same benefit that was granted to the petitioners in Shambhu {supra). Mr. Chibber points out that vis-a-vis the order dated 11"' October 2017 in Shambhu {supra) the contempt petition was filed in this Court and a statement has been made by the Respondents in those proceedings that they
implementing the decision of this Court in Shambhu {supra). Further, in the case of one Harkesh Tyagi who was a similarly placed petitioner in W.P.(Q 341/2017, it was noticed by the Court that the Respondents had already granted the benefit of exercising the option although he had been granted the second financial upgradation only in March 2015." are
6. The cases of all these Petitioners are the same. Following the aforementioned decisions, these petitions are allowed and a direction is issued to the Respondents to refix the basic pay of all the Petitioners at % Rs. 10,230/- + Rs.4,200/- Grade Pay from the date of completion of 24 years of service while granting the benefit of 2"^ ACP to the Petitioners. The consequential order be passed within a period of 8 weeks from today. In case the payments including arrears are not made within the time stipulated, the Respondents shall additionally pay simple interest @ 9% per annum on the sum due to the Petitioners for the period of delay in making the payment. S. MURALIDHAR, J.
# SANJEEV NARULA, J.
NOVEMBER 15, 2018 Pallavi