Disposed

Manna Ram and Anr. v. UOI and Ors.

Delhi HC6 May 2016W.P.(C)/4003/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, superannuated CRPF head constables, sought ACP Scheme benefits for 24 years of service. Bench noted legal position was settled in prior pronouncements and directed respondents to determine eligibility and extend benefits with arrears within ten weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with direction to respondents to convey decision on eligibility within ten weeks; to grant second ACP benefits and pay arrears with 8% interest within six weeks if eligible.

Manna Ram and Anr. Vs UOI and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~45

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4003/2016 & C.M.16916/2016

¶4

MANNA RAM & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

UOI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Suman Chauhan, Advocate with Mr. S.S. Sejwal, Law Officer and Mr. B.K. Rout, Pairvi Officer, CRPF CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶8

O R D E R % 06.05.2016

¶9

The petitioners, who had superannuated on the post of a Head

¶10

Constables with the respondent-CRPF on 31^st March, 2007 and 31^st July, 2008 respectively, have filed the present petition praying inter alia for issuing directions to the respondents to grant them the benefits under the ACP Scheme upon completion of 24 years of regular service.

¶11

Mr. Chhibber, learned counsel for the petitioners, states that the issue raised in the present petition stands settled vide judgment dated

¶12

05.03.2015 passed by the Division Bench in a batch of writ petitions, lead

¶13

Page 1 of 4

¶14

W.P.(C) 4003/2016

¶15

matter registered as W.P.(C) 388/2015 entitled Om Prakash and Ors. Vs. UOI and Ors., whereunder directions were issued to the respondents to grant the petitioners therein the second ACP benefits with effect from the date, they had completed 24 years of service, reckoned from the date of their initial appointment, subject to their being fit for promotion and subject to other eligibility conditions.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that after the judgment dated 05.03.2015 was pronounced, the respondents had filed review petitions seeking review of the said decision, which were dismissed by a common order dated 29.01.2016, by holding that remustering of the petitioners therein to the rank of Naik RO had to be ignored for grant of ACP. It is stated by counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners herein are entitled to identical relief as they have completed 24 years of service, from the date of their initial appointment.

¶17

That the legal position stands settled vide judgment dated 15.03.2015 in the captioned cases, is not disputed by the respondents though learned counsel for the respondents add that they are contemplating filing SLPs against the said judgment.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the

¶19

Page 2 of 4

¶20

W.P.(C) 4003/2016

¶21

judgment in the captioned cases, the petitioners had served a legal notice dated 6^th February, 2015, on the respondents stating inter alia that their case was covered by the judgment dated 6.9.2013 by the Division Bench in W.Ps.(C). No.5539/2013, 5059/2013 and 4258/2013. However, the

¶22

respondents did not grant the benefit of the second ACP to the petitioners. This is despite the fact that the respondents had on their own issued a clarification dated 16^th February, 2015, regarding implementation of the judgment dated 6^th September, 2013 in W.P.(C). 4258/2013, entitled “Gajraj Singh and Others v Union of India and Others”.

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions from Mr. S.S. Sejwal, Law Officer, CRPF, does not deny that the present case is covered by the judgment in the case of Gajraj Singh (supra) and assures the Court that the petitioners’ case shall be processed in terms of the directions issued vide judgment dated 6^th September, 2013 passed in W.Ps.(C). No.5539/2013, 5059/2013 and 4258/2013, subject to their being eligible and upon verification of the factual position.

¶24

The respondents are directed to take a decision on the petitioners’ grievance raised above and convey the same to them within ten weeks from today. If the petitioners are found eligible for being promoted and

¶25

Page 3 of 4

¶26

W.P.(C) 4003/2016

¶27

resultantly, entitled to grant of the second ACP benefits, the same shall be extended to them within the same timeline and the arrears would be paid within six weeks from the date of the decision. In case the arrears are not paid within the stipulated timeline, then the same shall carry simple interest @ 8% per annum.

¶28

The petition is disposed of along with pending application.

HIMA KOHLI, J

SUNIL GAUR, J

MAY 06, 2016

Page 4 of 4

W.P.(C) 4003/2016

Manna Ram and Anr. v. UOI and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manna Ram and Anr. v. UOI and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Rathore Fair Price Shop Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Greatship (India) Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Syndicate Bank Vs Anand Prasad & Anr.

Kiran Jain & Ors. Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Ct./Drv.Ismail Khan Vs UOI & Ors.

Ram Awatar Verma Vs Union of India & Anr.

Shikha Malhotra Vs Director of Education and Ors.

Ex. Const. Gd Rajbir Singh Vs UOI & Ors.

Constable Veer Singh Vs Union of India & Anr.

Subhas Chandra Sarkar Vs Union of India & Anr.

Jai Pal Vs UOI and Ors.

Brijender Singh Vs UOI and Ors.

Surjit Kumar Ray Vs Union of India & Anr.

Vandana Kumari Vs Union of India & Anr.