Pradeep Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

1. The petitioner, who is working as a Deputy Commandant in the CRPF has by way of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:a) To quash the signal/selo No. IRLA No. 8005/20-21-Aud- 13 dated 25.09.2020 as issued by Respondent No. 5 thereby the first annual increment as Assistant Commandant with effect from 01.07.2010 has been denied to the Petitioner, (b) To quash the signal/selo No. IRLA-8005/20-21-Aud-13 dated 21.01.2021 and signal/selo No. IRLA 8005/21-22- Aud-13 dated 25.05.2021 as issued by Respondent No. 5 thereby the Respondent No. 5 denied stepping up the pay of the Petitioner;

(c) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 2 to 6

(d) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 2 to 6 to treat the petitioner having been appointed as Assistant Commandant since 23.10.2009 instead of 13.01.2010 and to grant all consequential benefits alike to his batch mates/juniors accruing thereof by way of re- calculation of the monetary and other benefits;

2. The sole grievance of the petitioner is that though he was promoted as an Assistant Commandant(GD) on 23.10.2009, the respondents did not pass any orders relieving him from the 9th Bn till 03.01.2010, as a result whereof he could not join his promotional post at 86th Bn till 13.01.2010. Consequently, he had not completed six months service as an Assistant Commandant(GD) on 01.07.2010 and has been denied benefits of the increment, which was granted to all his batchmates on 01.07.2010, who had joined the promotional posts prior to 31.12.2009 and had, therefore, completed six months service on 01.07.2010.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once it is apparent from the respondent’s counter affidavit itself that the petitioner was not relieved from 9th Bn till 03.01.2010, he cannot be faulted for joining his promotional post at 86th Bn only on 13.01.2010 and consequently not been able to complete six months service on 01.07.2010, which was a pre-condition for grant of increment on 01.07.2010. Resultantly the petitioner is drawing lesser salary than his batchmates as they were all granted an increment on 01.07.2010, which increment was arbitrarily denied to the petitioner. He, therefore, prays that impugned orders be quashed and the respondents be directed to grant the petitioner an additional increment as an Assistant Commandant w.e.f. 01.07.2010 alongwith all consequential benefits so that he draws the same pay at par with his batchmates.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents while not denying any of the factual averments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner having joined the promotional post of Assistant Commandant(GD) on 13.01.2010 had admittedly not completed six months service in the said rank on 01.07.2010. As per the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, she contends, only those employees who had completed six months service in the revised pay structure as on 01.07.2010 could be granted an increment and, therefore, in accordance with the rules, the petitioner was rightly not granted any increment on 01.07.2010. Furthermore, the petitioner had submitted an option that his pay fixation may be done on the basis of his next increment. She, therefore, prays that the writ petition be dismissed.

5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we are of the view that since it is an admitted position that the respondents themselves are responsible for his not being able to join the promotional post of Assistant Commandant(GD) in the 86th Bn till 13.01.2010, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the increment given to all his batchmates promoted under the same promotional order. The petitioner is, therefore, justified in urging that he cannot be faulted for the delay on the part of the respondents in not relieving him from the 9th Bn in time so as to enable him to join the promotional post before the crucial date of 01.01.2010, which would have enabled him to complete six months service on the promotional post of Assistant Commandant(GD) before 01.07.2010.

6. In our considered view, after the petitioner was promoted as an Assistant Commandant(GD) on 23.10.2009, the respondents ought to have relieved him from 9th Bn where he was working as an Inspector, so that he could, like his batchmates, join the promotional post of Assistant Commandant(GD) before 01.01.2010. As a result of this lapse on the part of the respondents, the petitioner despite being promoted to the post of Assistant Commandant(GD) on 23.10.2009, continued to discharge duties as an Inspector till as late as 03.01.2010. In fact, because of this delay on the part of the respondents, the petitioner has not only been deprived of the increment, which all his other batchmates were granted on 01.07.2010, but has also been denied the salary of the Assistant Commandant(GD) till 13.01.2010 on which date he actually joined the said post.

7. Further, we find that the respondents realizing that they were at fault in not relieving the petitioner in time, have themselves granted him seniority as an Assistant Commandant(GD) w.e.f. 23.10.2009, the date on which the promotion order was passed. We also do not find any merit in the respondents’ plea that since the petitioner had specifically opted for his pay fixation to be done on the date of his next increment, he cannot be granted an increment w.e.f. 01.07.2010. Once the respondents are solely responsible for the petitioner not being able to complete six months service as Assistant Commandant(GD) on 01.07.2010, they cannot be permitted to deny this increment to the petitioner, which has been granted to all his batchmates.

8. In the light of the aforesaid, we allow the writ petition by directing the respondents to re-fix the pay of the petitioner by granting him an additional increment w.e.f. 01.07.2010. The petitioner will also be entitled to all consequential benefits arising out of the grant of this additional increment. Orders regarding grant of an increment w.e.f. 01.07.2010 and re-fixation of the petitioner’s pay will be passed within 12 weeks. Consequently, orders dated 25.09.2020, 21.01.2021 and 25.05.2021 rejecting his representations are also quashed.

9. We, however, make it clear that since the petitioner did not shoulder any responsibilities of the post of Assistant Commandant(GD) till 13.01.2010, he will not be entitled to any arrears of differential salary for the period between 23.10.2009 to 13.01.2010 i.e., the date on which he took charge of the post of Assistant Commandant(GD).

10. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

(REKHA PALLI) JUDGE (SHALINDER KAUR)

JUDGE JULY 29, 2024