Allowed

Sunil Kumar Tyagi v. Union of India and Anr.

Delhi HC1 May 2019W.P.(C)/3549/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissing the first prayer as already granted, the Court directed the respondents to grant Maximum Career Progression benefits to the petitioner from October, 2007, placing him in the Sub Inspector pay scale with arrears and 6% simple interest on delay.

What did the court decide?

Grant of MACP benefits from October 2007 in Rs. 5500-9000 pay scale, payment of arrears within 12 weeks, and 6% simple interest on delay if orders are not issued.

Sunil Kumar Tyagi Vs Union of India and Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

W.P.(C) 3549/2018

¶3

SUNIL KUMAR TYAGI ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Asha Jain Madan, Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Jain, Advocate.

¶4

versus

¶5

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Ms Archana Gaur and Ms Ridhima Gaur, Advocates for UOI.

¶6

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA

¶7

O R D E R

¶8

% 01.05.2019

¶9

There are three prayers in this writ petition – one is for a direction to the Respondents to grant the Petitioner the benefit of the first Assured Career Progression (‘ACP’) Scheme with effect from October, 1999, when the Petitioner had actually completed 12 years of service instead of 30^th December, 2000. The second is that the benefit of the MACP should be granted with effect from October, 2007 (instead of 1^st September, 2008), when the Petitioner completed 20 years of service. The third prayer is that the benefit of the MACP should be given by placing the Petitioner in the scale of Sub Inspector (‘SI’) i.e. Rs.5500-9000 (pre-revised).

¶10

As far as the first prayer is concerned, the same has already been granted by the Respondents to the Petitioner. As far as the second prayer is concerned, the issue is covered in favour of the Petitioner by the judgment

¶11

W.P.(C) 3549/2018 Page 1 of 3

¶12

dated 8^th December, 2017 of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Balbir Singh Turn (2018) 11 SCC 99. The Supreme Court has in the above judgment clarified that the benefit of the MACP which was on the basis of the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission to be extended with effect from 1^st January, 2006 and not from 1^st September, 2008, as was directed by the Respondents.

¶13

As regards the fixing of the correct pay scale of the Petitioner, it is seen that in BSF/General Duty, there is no post of ASI/General Duty in the pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 (pre-revised) which had been converted into Pay Band-I i.e. 5200-20200 in the grade pay of Rs.2800 having pay band of 8560 with the total pay (basic pay) of Rs.11360. Thus, in the case of the Petitioner, the second financial upgradation was required to be given in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 (pre-revised). Since this was not granted to other similarly placed as the Petitioner, writ petitions were filed in this Court. A series of judgments have been passed by this Court in those writ petitions, as a result of which the Respondents extended the benefit of financial upgradation in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 to all personnel who had completed 24 years of regular service during the period 9^th August, 1999 to 31^st August, 2008.

¶14

The counter affidavit of the Respondents does not dispute the applicability of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v Balbir Singh Turn ( supra ) or the applicability of the other orders of this Court, including the order dated 18^th December, 2015 in W.P.(C) No.11725 ( Digamber Singh ASI v UOI ) concerning the appropriate pay scale for the

¶15

W.P.(C) 3549/2018 Page 2 of 3

¶16

purposes of grant of the MACP benefits.

¶17

Consequently, this Court directs as under:

¶18

(i) The Petitioner would be given the benefit of the MACP with effect from October, 2007 instead of 1^st September, 2008; and

¶19

(ii) The above benefit will be given by placing the Petitioner in the pay scale of of Sub Inspector i.e. 5500-9000 (pre-revised).

¶20

(iii) The appropriate orders will be issued and the arrears will be paid to the Petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from today, failing which the Respondents will be liable to pay simple interest @ 6% per annum on the arrears for the period of delay.

¶21

The petition is disposed of in above terms. No costs.

¶22

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

¶23

I.S. MEHTA, J.

¶24

MAY 01, 2019 rd

¶25

W.P.(C) 3549/2018 Page 3 of 3

Sunil Kumar Tyagi v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar Tyagi v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tek Chand Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sharad Tewatia & Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rakesh Gulati and Ors. Vs Federal Bank Ltd. and Ors.

State Bank of India Vs M/S Jaspark Speciality Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Hajra Topia Vs Union of India and Ors.

S. Sadachari Sai Baba Om Ji Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs UOI and Ors.

Bano Devi and Anr. Vs National Commission for Scheduled Castes

Tek Chand Vs Union of India and Ors.

Amarvir Singh & Ors. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Debasish Karmakar Vs Director of Education & Anr.

Jatin Parikh Vs Whatman International Ltd. & Ors.

Sharon Francis through Her Legal Guardian Vs Army Hq through Adjutant General & Anr.

Awadhesh Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.