Dismissed

Union of India & Ors. v. Bhadar Sain Chandolia & Ors.

Delhi HC8 May 2025W.P.(C)/16650/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the Tribunal's order quashing rejection of the respondents' representations for the 3rd MACP in Grade Pay Rs.5400/-. The High Court held that past service counted under an earlier Tribunal order must also count for MACP and found no infirmity in the impugned order.

What the court decided

AI extract

Union of India & Ors. Vs Bhadar Sain Chandolia… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~88

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 08.05.2025

¶4

- W.P.(C) 16650/2024

¶5

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr.Shashank Dixit, CGSC, Mr.Kunal Raj, Mr.Sumit Khokhar, Mr.Vinet Aawana, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

BHADAR SAIN CHANDOLIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr.Sudarshan Rajan, Mr.Ramesh Rawat, Mr.Hitain Bajaj, Mr.Sambhav Sharma, Mr.Aryan Shmad, Advs.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

¶10

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

¶11

CAV 588/2024

¶12

As the learned counsel for the respondents entered appearance, the Caveat stands discharged.

¶13

CM APPL. 70431/2024 (Exemption)

¶14

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

¶15

W.P.(C) 16650/2024 & CM APPL. 70432/2024

¶16

This petition has been filed by the petitioners, challenging the Order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Central Administrative

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

Digitally Signed WP(C) 16650/2024 By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:1 4.05.2025 18:31:14

¶19

Page 1 of 4

¶20

Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 2479/2022, tiled Bhadar Sain Chandolia & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors ., whereby the said O.A. filed by the respondents herein was allowed, and the Order dated 16.05.2017, whereby the petitioners had rejected the representations of the respondents for grant of the 3^rd MACP in the Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-, was quashed.

¶21

Briefly stated, the respondents were appointed to the post of Compositor Grade-II in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 (5^th CPC) in the 1980s. They were re-appointed on various dates by way of absorption on a transfer basis, to the post of Key Board Operator (which was later re-designated as D.T.P. Operator) in the pay Scale of Rs.4500-7000 (5^th CPC), and their pay was accordingly fixed under FR 22(C), a provision relating to pay fixation in case of promotion. 5. The respondents filed a petition before the learned Tribunal, being O.A. No.16/2010, seeking addition for their past service rendered as Compositor Grade-II as service rendered by them at the post of Key Board Operator. The said O.A. was allowed by the learned Tribunal vide its Order dated 02.02.2011. 6. In spite of the above, the respondents were granted the First and the Second MACP by treating their appointment with effect from the 1990s, that is, from the date of their re-appointed by way of absorption on a transfer basis to the post of Key Board Operator. They submitted representations for treating their appointment from the date when they were initially appointed to the post of Compositor Grade-II for grant of the benefit of the 3^rd MACP. The matter was referred by the

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Digitally Signed WP(C) 16650/2024 By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:1 4.05.2025 18:31:14

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

petitioners to the DoPT, whereafter the claim was rejected. Aggrieved of the same, the respondents filed the above O.A.

¶26

The learned Tribunal, by the Impugned Order, has observed that the case of the respondents is covered by an earlier decision passed in O.A. No.4008/2012, titled I.D. Sharma v. Union of India , where a similar benefit has been granted.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said order of the learned Tribunal was distinguishable and was related to the facts of that particular case alone, and that it had been duly considered by the petitioners while rejecting the representations of the respondents.

¶28

We are not impressed with the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 10. Admittedly, the respondents though were initially appointed to the post of Compositor Grade-II in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590, they were later re-appointed, by way of absorption on a transfer basis, to the post of Key Board Operator, and their past service was also to be counted in terms of the Order dated 02.02.2011 passed by the learned Tribunal. The past service would, therefore have to be awarded even for the grant of the MACP benefit. Apart from stating that the order of the learned Tribunal in I.D. Sharma (supra) is not applicable to the present case, the respondent is unable to give any reason for not applying the same.

¶29

Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the Impugned Order passed by the learned Tribunal.

¶30

The petition is accordingly dismissed. The pending application

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed WP(C) 16650/2024 By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:1 4.05.2025 18:31:14

¶33

Page 3 of 4

¶34

is also disposed of as being infructuous.

¶35

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶36

RENU BHATNAGAR, J

¶37

MAY 8, 2025/Arya/DG

¶38

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶39

Signature Not Verified

¶40

Digitally Signed WP(C) 16650/2024 By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:1 4.05.2025 18:31:14

¶41

Page 4 of 4

Union of India & Ors. v. Bhadar Sain Chandolia & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Union of India & Ors. v. Bhadar Sain Chandolia & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Gaffar Prop. M/S Farhad Traders Vs Union of India & Anr.

Raj Kumar Aggarwal(through Legal Heir Sandeep Aggarwal) Vs Union of India & Anr.

Kmtc (India) Private Limited Vs Sales Tax Officer Class Ii/Avato, Ward 94 & Ors.

M/S A.S. Builders Vs Union of India & Anr.

Kapil Dev Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors.

Praveen Kumar Dwivedi and Anr. Vs Bses Yamuna Power Limited & Anr.

Truevalue Marketing Services Private Limited & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Simon Anthony Vs Union of India and Anr.

M/S Global Broadcasting Solutions Opc Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Offbeat Media and Communications Pvt. Ltd.

Canara Bank & Ors. Vs Raj Kumar Wadhera & Ors.

Government of NCT Delhi and Ors. Vs Priya Kaim

Ashok Kumar Gupta (Since Deceased) through His Lrs. Vs Suresh Chand Gupta (Since Deceased) through His Lrs.

Sh. Arvind Sagar Vs Smt. Kavita @ Seema

Rajiv Kumar Pandey Vs Comptroller and Auditor General of India