Insp GD Murari Lal v. Union of India

1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

2. Present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to the Respondents to immediately re-fix the basic pay/salary of the Petitioners as per the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission along with the arrears and interest due.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners states that the issue raised in the present writ petition has already been decided in the case of Braham Prakash & Ors. vs. Union of India W.P. (C) 3636/2006 and W.P. (C) 8451/2017. He emphasises that the Petitioners are all similarly situated persons as they are members of the CRPF. He states that the Petitioners 2021:DHC:2677-DB joined CRPF as Constable (GD) in the year 2001. He further states that the Petitioners appeared in LDCE-2008 Exam and were promoted to SI/GD. He points out that before the Petitioners were selected as SI/GD, the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission came into force and in accordance with Rule 5 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, the Central Government employees were entitled to give an option stating whether they want to switch over to a revised pay structure and this was to be done within three months from the date of issuance of the rules.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners states that since the Petitioners were posted at different stations during their service, most of the Petitioners were not aware about the option that needed to be submitted to the Respondents. He states that the Petitioners were subsequently promoted to the rank of Insp/GD in 2011.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents states that though three of the Petitioners, namely, Petitioners nos.15, 18 and 21 have been granted relief prayed for, yet no order has been passed with regard to the other Petitioners.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the issue raised in the present writ petition is no longer res integra and is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench in Braham Prakash (supra); W.P.(C) No.3636/2016. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- “7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that the only stand taken by the respondents to deny the petitioner the benefit of his revised option dated 03.12.2010, is that he being a fresh appointee to the post of Sub-Inspector (GD) w.e.f. 08.11.2007, was not eligible to exercise any option in accordance with Rule 5 of the CCS Rules as the said option was available only to persons who were already in service before 01.01.2006. It may be noted that it is undisputed before us that the petitioner had joined the CRPF on 23.02.2003 and was appointed as a Sub-Inspector (GD) on 08.11.2007 by way of LDCE. Therefore, the question before us would be whether upon joining the post of Sub Inspector (GD) by way of LDCE on 08.11.2007, it could be said that the petitioner had joined Government service after 01.01.2006.

8. Before we deal with the rival contentions of the parties, it is deemed it appropriate to refer to Rules 5 and 6 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, which read as under:-

structure. Explanation 3 - Where a Government servant exercises the option under the provisos to this rule to retain the existing scale in respect of a post held by him in an officiating capacity on a regular basis for the purpose of regulation of pay in that scale under Fundamental Rule 22, or any other rule or order applicable to that post, his substantive pay shall be substantive pay which he would have drawn had he retained the existing scale in respect of the permanent post on which he holds a lien or would have held a lien had his lien not been suspended or the pay of the officiating post which has acquired the character of substantive pay in accordance with any order for the time being in force, whichever is higher.

6. Exercise of Option -

1) The option under the provisos to Rule 5 shall be exercised in writing in the form appended to the Second Schedule so as to reach the authority mentioned in sub rule (2) within three months of the date of publication of these rules or where an existing scale has been revised by any order to that date, within three months of the date of such order. Provided that -

(i) in the case of a Government servant who is, on the date of such publication or, as the case may be, date of such order, out of India on leave or deputation or foreign service or active service, the said option shall be exercised in writing so as to reach the said authority within three months of the date of his taking charge of his post in India; and

(ii) where a Government servant is under suspension on the 1st day of January, 2006, the option may be exercised within three months of the date of his return to his duty if that date is later than the date prescribed in this sub-rule. (2) The option shall be intimated by the Government servant to the Head of his Office. (3) If the intimation regarding option is not received within the time mentioned in sub-rule (1), the Government servant shall be deemed to have elected to be governed by the revised pay structure with effect on and from the 1 day of January, 2006. (4) The option once exercised shall be final Note 1 - Persons whose services were terminated on or after the 1st January, 2006 and who could not exercise the option within the prescribed time limit, on account of discharge on the expiry of the sanctioned posts, resignation, dismissal or discharge or disciplinary grounds, are entitled to the benefits of this rule Note 2 - Persons who have died on or after the 1* day of January, 2006 and could not exercise the option within the prescribed time limit are deemed to have opted for the revised pay structure on and from the 1 day of January, 2006 or such later date as is most beneficial to their dependents, if the revised pay structure is more favourable and in such cases, necessary action for payment of arrears should be taken by the Head of Office Note 3 – Persons who were on earned leave or any other leave on 1.1.2006 which entitled them to leave salary will be allowed the benefits of this rule.”

9. A perusal of the aforesaid Rules clearly reveals that as per Explanation 2 to Rule 5, “those persons who are appointed to a post for the first time in Government service on or after 01.01.2006", are prohibited from exercising the option to switch over to the revised pay structure from a date later than 01.01.2006. Thus, the entire claim of the petitioner hinges on whether he can be treated as a person who had joined Government service for the first time, on or after 01.01.2006.

10. The question as to whether a person appointed by way of LDCE is a direct recruit or a promotee, need not detain us for too long as we find that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Man Singh (supra), has categorically held that appointment through LDCE is merely an appointment by way of promotion albeit fast tracked. In arriving at the aforesaid decision, the Division Bench had relied upon the notings of the Ministry of Home Affairs itself wherein, it had been clearly stated that LDCE is a mode of promotion. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant extracts of the decision in the case of Man Singh (supra), are reproduced hereinbelow:-