Allowed

Mahendra Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC10 Apr 2019W.P.(C)/3602/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows the writ petition filed by CRPF Inspector GDs seeking fixation of pay scale at Rs.10,230/- plus grade pay of Rs.4200/- with effect from the date of their twenty-fourth tenure anniversary. The High Court directed the respondents to issue consequential orders within eight weeks, relying on the judgment in Shambhu.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to fix pay scales at Rs.10,230/- plus grade pay of Rs.4200/- from the date each petitioner completed 24 years of service; consequential orders within eight weeks.

Mahendra Singh and Ors. Vs Union of India and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

¶4

W.P.(C) 3602/2019 & CM APPL. 16527/2019

¶5

MAHENDRA SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr KK Sharma, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Dilbag Singh, Advocate with Mr. Vivek Kr. Singh (DC Law, CRPF) and Mr. Deepak Kumar(SI CRPF)

¶8

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

¶9

O R D E R % 10.04.2019

¶10

CM 16527/2019 (exemption)

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

W.P.(C) 3602/2019

¶13

This writ petition has been filed by two Inspector GD’s of the CRPF who were initially recruited as Constables (GD) praying for fixation of pay scale at Rs.9,300/- plus grade pay of Rs.4,200/- with effect from 27^th June 2007. According to the Petitioner, pay ought to be fixed at Rs.10,230/- plus grade pay of Rs.4200/- (Rs.1500/- x 1.86) which was due with effect from 31^st August 2008 and 19^th August 2007 pursuant to the grant of benefit of the second financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (‘ACP Scheme’) with all consequential benefits.

¶14

W.P.(C) 3602/2019 Page 1 of 4

¶15

The Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment dated 11^th October 2017 passed by this Court in SI/GD Shambhu v. Union of India [W.P.(C) 9359/2016 & connected matters] as well as the judgment dated 12^th January 2018 in Jas Ram v. Union of India [W.P.(C) 332/2017 & connected matters].

¶16

The background to these petitions has been noticed in the judgment of this Court in Shambhu ( supra ). The Petitioner therein, similar to the present Petitioners, was granted the benefit of second financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme in the year 2015 under different orders and from dates prior to 2006 as and when each of them completed 24 years of service. In terms of Rules 5 and 7 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) (Rules) 2008 (‘2008 Rules’), an option was given to government servants to continue to draw pay in the existing pay scale until the date on which the next subsequent increment in the existent scale is earned or till he vacates his post or seeks to withdraw that scale. In terms of the second proviso to Rule 5, a government servant placed in a higher pay scale on account of promotion, upgradation of pay, etc. between 1^st January 2006 and 29^th August 2008 (the date of notification of the 2008 Rules) was given an option to switch over to the revised pay structure from the date of his promotion, upgradation, etc. Rule 7 of the 2008 Rules related to the fixation of initial pay in the revised pay structure. A government servant would, in terms of Rule 6(3), be governed by the revised pay structure under the 2008 Rules with effect from 1^st January 2006, unless it was directed by a special order that his pay would be fixed separately. Rule 7(1)(A)(i) stated that the pay band/pay scale would be determined by multiplying the existing basic

¶17

W.P.(C) 3602/2019 Page 2 of 4

¶18

pay as on 1^st January 2006 by a factor of 1.86 and rounding off the resultant figure to the next multiple of 10. Clause (ii) states that when a minimum revised pay band/pay scale was more than the amount arrived at by applying the aforesaid multiplier, the pay would be fixed at the minimum revised pay band/pay scale.

¶19

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 1^st January 2006, subsequently they fixed at the minimum pay band of Rs.9,300/-. It was pointed out before this Court that the Petitioners therein did not have to exercise their option under the proviso to Rule 5 on or before 31^st March 2013 because the second financial upgradation benefit was given to them only in 2015.

¶20

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/-.

¶21

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 petitioner in Shambhu ( supra ). Further, in the case of one Harkesh Tyagi , who was a similarly placed petitioner in W.P.(C) 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.

¶22

W.P.(C) 3602/2019 Page 3 of 4

¶23

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The Respondents are directed to fix the pay scales of the Petitioner at Rs.10,230/- with grade pay of Rs.4200/- with effect from the date on which each of them completed 24 years of service. The consequential orders shall be issued by the Respondents within a period of eight weeks from today.

¶24

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

I.S. MEHTA, J.

APRIL 10, 2019

W.P.(C) 3602/2019 Page 4 of 4

Mahendra Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Singh and Ors. v. Union of India 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate & Ors.

Progility Technologies Private Limited Vs Software Technology Parks of India and Anr.

Prashant Kumar Umrao Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Ms. Aruvita Mishra Vs Delhi University and Anr.

M/S Swastik Cement Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rajni Gupta Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

Sunaina Devi Smarak Shikshan Prashikshan Sansthan Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Thermo Fisher Scientific India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare and Ors.

Natco Pharma Ltd. Vs Novartis Ag & Ors.

Ashok Kumar & Sons (Huf) Vs Brahma City Private Ltd.

Naresh Kumar Vs State of Gnct Delhi & Ors.

Prashant Sharma Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

Libas Design Limited & Ors. Vs Purshottam Keshwani & Ors.

Akhtar Elahi Vs Union of India and Ors.