Allowed

Suraj Bhan Yadav v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC7 Jan 2019W.P.(C)/43/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition by a CRPF Sub-Inspector seeking quashing of a lower pay scale order. Relying on Shambhu and Jas Ram, the Court directed the Respondents to fix the petitioner's pay at Rs.10,230/- plus grade pay of Rs.4,200/- from the date of his 24 years of service under the ACP Scheme.

What did the court decide?

Direction to fix pay scale at Rs.10,230/- with grade pay of Rs.4,200/- from the date of 24 years of service.

Suraj Bhan Yadav Vs Union of India and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 60 + W.P.(C) 43/2019

¶3

SURAJ BHAN YADAV ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Ankur Chhibber, Advocate.

¶4

versus

¶5

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Sushil Kumar Pandey, Advocate with Mr Vivek Kumar Singh, DC Law, CRPF.

¶6

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶7

O R D E R

¶8

% 07.01.2019

¶9

CM 217/2019 (exemption)

¶10

1.Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

W.P.(C) 43/2019

¶12

This writ petition has been filed by a Sub-Inspector (‘SI’) of the CRPF who was initially recruited as Constable (GD) pray for the quashing of a letter dated 8^th April 2015, fixing his pay scale at Rs.9,300/- plus grade pay of Rs.4,200/- with effect from 27^th June 2007. According to the Petitioner, his 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 27^th June 2007 pursuant to the grant of benefit of the second financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (‘ACP Scheme’) with all consequential benefits.

¶13

The Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments dated

¶14

W.P.(C) 43/2019 Page 1 of 4

¶15

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 Petitioners therein, as the present Petitioners, were 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 pay as on 1^st January 2006 by a factor of 1.86 and rounding off the resultant

¶17

W.P.(C) 43/2019 Page 2 of 4

¶18

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 petitioners in Shambhu ( supra ). Mr. Chibber points out that vis-a-vis the order dated 11^th October 2017 in Shambhu ( supra ), a contempt petition was filed in this Court and a statement has been made by the Respondents in those proceedings that they are 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.(C) 341/2017, it was noticed by the Court that the Respondents had already granted the

¶22

W.P.(C) 43/2019 Page 3 of 4

¶23

benefit of exercising the option although he had been granted the second financial upgradation only in March 2015.

¶24

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.

¶25

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

¶26

SANJEEV NARULA, J.

¶27

JANUARY 07, 2019 rd

¶28

W.P.(C) 43/2019 Page 4 of 4

Suraj Bhan Yadav v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Bhan Yadav 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

Moet Hennessy India Private Limited Vs Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax Special Range - 6, New Delhi

Moet Hennessy India Private Limited Vs Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax Special RANGE-6, New Delhi

Moet Hennessy India Private Limited Vs Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax Special Range - 6, New Delhi

Sheetal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sukhbir Singh & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Dr. (Ms.) Banti M. Singh Vs University of Delhi and Anr.

Bipin Kumar Yadav and Ors. Vs New Delhi Municipal Council

Hemant Verma @ Hemant Gogna Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rakesh Dhingra Vs National Scheduled Castes Finance & Development Corporation and Ors.

Poonnamma Vishwanathan Vs M/S Moolchand Khairati Ram Hospital & Ayurvedic Research Institute

Balram and Ors. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Jai Prakash Vs the State Govt of NCT Delhi & Ors.

Sh. Rajesh Kumar and Ors. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Prakash and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.