Allowed

Ram Singh Yadav & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC3 May 2024W.P.(C)/2290/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a direction to grant Senior Time Scale with effect from December 30, 2006, relying on a prior judgment fixing their appointment date. The Court held them entitled to the benefit notionally, directing respondent to pass resultant orders within 10 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted benefit of prior judgment for Senior Time Scale w.e.f. 30.12.2006 notionally; resultant orders to be issued within 10 weeks.

Ram Singh Yadav & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 2290/2024

¶4

RAM SINGH YADAV & ORS. ..... Petitioners

¶5

Through: Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate.

¶6

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Farman Ali, Sr. Panel Counsel with Mr. Amit Gupta, SPC with Mr. Kautilya Birat, GP for UOI. Mr. Vedansh Anand, Govt. Pleader.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 03.05.2024 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following

¶11

prayers:

¶12

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant Senior Time Scale to the petitioners with effect from 30.12.2006 in terms of the judgment dated 14.07.2022 passed by this Hon‟ble Court in W.P. (C) No.10612/2022 titled as „Ram Singh Yadav & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors‟;

¶13

(ii) Pass any such other orders as it may deem fit to this Hon‟ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶14

In effect, the petitioners are seeking the benefit of the judgment rendered by this Court on 14.11.2018 in Satya Dev Yadav and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr. in W.P.(C) 8809/2017 whereby this Court had disposed of the said writ petition by stating in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 as

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/05/2024 at 11:58:02

¶17

under:

¶18

“7. Among the reasons given for rejecting the Petitioners‟ request is „that Rule 3 of the BSF Rules is quite clear‟ and that “the seniority cannot be assigned prior to their birth in the cadre”. The above conclusion is in fact contrary to Rule 3(3) (iv) which has been quoted hereinbefore which makes it clear that the seniority will count from the date when the direct entry officer reported for training. It also ignores the fact that the Directorate of BSF has itself re-assigned the date of appointment of the Petitioners from 6th January, 2003 to 30^th December, 2002. Consequently, the Court is not in agreement with the reason given by Respondent No.1 for rejecting the Petitioners‟ request.

¶19

8. It must be clarified that counsel for the Petitioners has on instructions stated that the Petitioners are not claiming the actual financial emoluments for the zero week. They are only concerned that for the purposes of seniority and financial benefits their date of appointment should be treated as 30^th December, 2002.

¶20

9. Accepting this request of the Petitioners, the writ petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the Respondent to treat the date of appointment of the Petitioners for the purposes of seniority and financial benefits as 30^th December, 2002.”

¶21

The submission of Mr. Lamba is that the petitioners have actually got the benefit of ‘Senior Time Scale’ w.e.f January 06, 2007 whereas in view of the change in the date of appointment from January 05, 2003 to December 30, 2002, the petitioners are seeking the advancement in the date of grant of ‘Senior Time Scale’ to December 30, 2006. The only objection taken by Mr. Ali, learned counsel for the respondents is that the respondents do not have the medical categorization of the petitioners in Shape-I prior to December 30, 2006. According to him, as per his instructions, the record has been weeded out on March 14, 2022. Since the issue is only for advancing the date of grant ‘Senior Time Scale’ from January 06, 2007 to

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/05/2024 at 11:58:02

¶24

December 30, 2006, and in view of the fact that the record is not available, we do not see any reason to disbelieve that the petitioners would not be in Shape –I medical category on the date preceding December 30, 2006.

¶25

Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to hold that the petitioners shall be entitled to the benefit of the judgment in the case of Satya Dev Yadav (supra), for grant of ‘Senior time Scale’ w.e.f December 30, 2006. The same shall be granted to the petitioners, but notionally. The resultant orders shall be issued within a period of 10 weeks.

¶26

Ms. Lamba states that she shall file an application seeking withdrawal of the contempt petition within a week.

¶27

This order has been passed in the facts of this case.

¶28

The petition stands disposed of.

¶29

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

¶30

DHARMESH SHARMA, J

¶31

MAY 3, 2024/ib

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/05/2024 at 11:58:02

Ram Singh Yadav & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Singh Yadav & Ors. v. Union of India & 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

Powertech Electroinfra Private Limited Vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Cental CIRCLE-25 Delhi & Anr.

Csl Food Products Private Limited Vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Central CIRCLE-28 Delhi & Anr.

Kamlesh Rani Jain Vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Cental CIRCLE-28 Delhi & Anr.

Yulduzhan Urakova Vs Foreigners Regional Registration Officer

Shri Shis Pal Singh & Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Zenith Leisure Holidays Ltd. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Shiv Raj Singh Vs the Board of Discipline of Icai & Anr.

Jakson Power Private Limited Vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs & Anr.

Ex Rifleman Acp-Ii Ges Bahadur Thapa Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sub Rajendra Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Virendra Kumar Vs Director General Border Roads & Ors.

Rohit Kumar Vs Indian Coast Guard through Its Director General & Ors.

Dr Y P Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Gulshan Upadhyay Vs Union of India & Ors.