Rajender Singh v. Union Of India And ORS

$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 25/2016, C.M. NOS.76/2016 & 77/2016 RAJENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner Through : Sh. Anand Nandan and Sh. D.S. Mishra, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through : Ms. Nisha, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

O R D E R

% 05.01.2016 The petitioner claims that the Grade Pay fixation in his case has been wrongly made.

The petitioner, a Central Government pensioner, was working at the relevant time in the Railway Protection Force (RPF) as an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI).

With the advent of the Sixth Central Pay Commission [hereafter "6 CPC"] recommendations and its acceptance, the petitioner's pay scale was determined to be `5200-20200/- with Grade Pay `2800/-. He retired on 29.02.2008 and his pension fixation was in accordance with the last pay drawn, i.e. in the pay scale of `5200-20200 with Grade Pay `2800/-. He claims to have made several applications under the RTI Act, 2005 to the concerned authorities for the reasons of non-compliance with respect to payment of Grade Pay of `4200/-. He, therefore, has approached the Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the Pay Fixation Order issued by the Northern Railway which records inter alia that before implementation of 6 CPC recommendations, his pay scale was `4000-6000/- and that the existing emoluments as on 01.01.2006 were: Basic Pay-`5000/-; DA-`2500/- and DA-`1800/- (pre-6 CPC recommendations). After implementation of 6 CPC recommendations, his pay was fixed in the Pay Band PB-1 in the pay scale `5200-20200/- with Grade Pay of `2800/- and his pay in the revised Pay Band was fixed at `9300/-. The relevant extracts of the Pay Fixation Order was relied upon as follows:

6.

Revised pay band and Grade Pay corresponding to the pre-revised scale shown at SI.4 above In case of HAG+ and above the appropriate Scale be mentioned Pay Band:

5200-2020 Grade Pay:

7.

Pay in revised Pay Band 8.

Grade Pay Total:

12100 The relevant extract of the First Schedule to the Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 reads as follows: Present Scale Revised Pay Structure SI.

No.

Post/Grade Present Scale Name of Pay Band/Scale Corresponding Pay Bands/Scales Corresponding Grade Pay (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) S-1 2550-55-2660-60-3200 -1S 4440-7440 XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX S-7 4000-100-6000 PB-1 5200-20200 S-8 4500-125-7000 PB-1 5200-20200 S-9 5000-150-8000 PB-2 9300-34800 XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX

It can be seen from the above discussion that the petitioner does not dispute his pay fixation in the Post/Grade S-8, i.e. a grade equivalent to pay scale `4500-7000/- even though his pre-revised pay scale was in the grade of `4000-6000/-. Such being the case, in the corresponding column, i.e. revised pay structure, he was fixed at the appropriate scale of `5200-20200/-. This carried the Grade Pay `2800/-.

The petitioner, in our opinion, has approached this Court under a mistaken notion that his pay fixation in the revised pay band (PB-1) at `9300/- automatically translates to fixation in the next higher Pay Band (PB-2), i.e. `9300-34800.

On implementation of 6 CPC recommendations, his pay was fixed in the pay scale `5200-20200/- with Grade Pay `2800/- in Pay Band PB-1 and simply because in the said Pay Band, his salary was fixed at `9300/- does not make him entitled to get the Grade Pay of `4200/- which is assigned to the Pay Band PB-2 against Pay Scale `9300-34800/-. Consequently, there is no infirmity in the grant of Grade Pay of `2800/- to him and the petitioner cannot claim the Grade Pay that he does, i.e. `4200/-.

For the above reasons, the writ petition is without merit. It is accordingly dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J DEEPA SHARMA, J JANUARY 05, 2016 ájk