Full Text
Translation output
Z-
+
$-5,6,7
* IN THE HIGH COURT
W.P.(C)838/2020
VIJAY NARAIN SINGH
Through
+
$-5,6,7
* IN THE HIGH COURT
W.P.(C)838/2020
VIJAY NARAIN SINGH
Through
VERSUS
UNION OFINDIA & ORS
Through
+
+
W.P.(C)840/2020
RAVINDER KUMAR
Through
Through
+
+
W.P.(C)840/2020
RAVINDER KUMAR
Through
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Through
OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Petitioner
Mr.Rajendra Kumar,Advocate
Respondents
Mr.Bhagvan Swamp Shukla,CGSC with
Ml-. Chetan Shukla, G.P and Mr. Gakul
Sharma, Advocate for UOI/respondents
No.l and 2.
Mr. Rajiv R. Mishra and Ms. Sumchi
Yadav, Advocates for respondent
No.S/DJB.
Petitioner
W.P.(C)849/2020
SANJAY KUMAR & ORS
Through
Through
OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Petitioner
Mr.Rajendra Kumar,Advocate
Respondents
Mr.Bhagvan Swamp Shukla,CGSC with
Ml-. Chetan Shukla, G.P and Mr. Gakul
Sharma, Advocate for UOI/respondents
No.l and 2.
Mr. Rajiv R. Mishra and Ms. Sumchi
Yadav, Advocates for respondent
No.S/DJB.
Petitioner
W.P.(C)849/2020
SANJAY KUMAR & ORS
Through
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Through
Mr. Chetan Shukla, G.P and Mr. Gakul
No.l and2.
N0.3/DJB.
Petitioners
Mr. Chetan Shukla, G.P and Mr. Gakul
No.l and2.
N0.3/DJB.
Through
Mr. Chetan Shukla, G.P and Mr. Gakul
No.l and2.
N0.3/DJB.
Petitioners
Mr. Chetan Shukla, G.P and Mr. Gakul
No.l and2.
N0.3/DJB.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
2020:DHC:3841-DB
;X
0/ ORDER
11.02.2020
Cent ^a7 """ °fbythe i^or2ofr~" ^
LearnedcounselforthepetitionerssubmitsthattheOAsweredisposedof hasttly without taking into consideration that the common grievance ofthe petitioners is regarding non-grant of benefits under the 6» Central Pay
Commission (CPC). Counsel submits that in para 3 of the order dated
16.08.2019theTribunal hasrefused togiveany direction to therespondentsto givethepetitionerstheoption togettheirpayfixed asperthenew scalesof6*
CPC,butnoreasonshave beengivenforsuch arefusal. Para3oftheorderof the Tribunalreads as under:
"3. A perusaloftherepresentations made bytheapplicants discloses that^ they are loaded with several unnecessary and complicated issues. One such issue is about the exercise of option. The applicants are notclear as to when the option, ifat all, wasgiven to differentcategories ofemployeesandas to why itwas notextendedto them,atthe relevantpointoftime. Weare not inclined to grant any reliefto the applicants as regards the exercise ofoption at this point oftime. Another reason is that even where the options were exercised, the employees who exercised them have virtually repentedfor choosing them and representations poured in to the respondents, to enable them to revise their options. When such is the case, where options were permitted to be exercised, we cannot direct the respondents to extendthe benefitofoption to theapplicantsatthisstage."
We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have considered their submissions.
A reading oforder dated 16.08.2019 appea^toshow thatthe Tribunal was in fact in haste, in observing that the representations made by the petitioners were loaded with unnecessary and complicated issues. Additionally, in the
A absence ofany substantial reasons for not extending the benefit ofthe option available to the petitioners for fixation oftheirpay,we are ofthe view thatthe order ofthe Tribunal cannot be sustained.
Accordingly,order dated 16.08.2019ofthe Tribunalis set-aside.
As prayed by learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners would make a simple representation before the respondents highlighting the relevant issues; and the respondents would consider the representations within eight weeksafterreceiptoftherepresentationsand passaspeaking order.
Needless to say,ifthe petitioners are still aggrieved,the petitioners may seek such remedy as available tothem in accordance with law.
The writpetitions are disposed ofin the above terms.
~i T T ^
G.S.SISTANI,J
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI,J
FEBRUARY 11,2020 pst
W.P.(C)838/2020 etc. j/j
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
2020:DHC:3841-DB
;X
0/ ORDER
11.02.2020
Cent ^a7 """ °fbythe i^or2ofr~" ^
LearnedcounselforthepetitionerssubmitsthattheOAsweredisposedof hasttly without taking into consideration that the common grievance ofthe petitioners is regarding non-grant of benefits under the 6» Central Pay
Commission (CPC). Counsel submits that in para 3 of the order dated
16.08.2019theTribunal hasrefused togiveany direction to therespondentsto givethepetitionerstheoption togettheirpayfixed asperthenew scalesof6*
CPC,butnoreasonshave beengivenforsuch arefusal. Para3oftheorderof the Tribunalreads as under:
"3. A perusaloftherepresentations made bytheapplicants discloses that^ they are loaded with several unnecessary and complicated issues. One such issue is about the exercise of option. The applicants are notclear as to when the option, ifat all, wasgiven to differentcategories ofemployeesandas to why itwas notextendedto them,atthe relevantpointoftime. Weare not inclined to grant any reliefto the applicants as regards the exercise ofoption at this point oftime. Another reason is that even where the options were exercised, the employees who exercised them have virtually repentedfor choosing them and representations poured in to the respondents, to enable them to revise their options. When such is the case, where options were permitted to be exercised, we cannot direct the respondents to extendthe benefitofoption to theapplicantsatthisstage."
We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have considered their submissions.
A reading oforder dated 16.08.2019 appea^toshow thatthe Tribunal was in fact in haste, in observing that the representations made by the petitioners were loaded with unnecessary and complicated issues. Additionally, in the
A absence ofany substantial reasons for not extending the benefit ofthe option available to the petitioners for fixation oftheirpay,we are ofthe view thatthe order ofthe Tribunal cannot be sustained.
Accordingly,order dated 16.08.2019ofthe Tribunalis set-aside.
As prayed by learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners would make a simple representation before the respondents highlighting the relevant issues; and the respondents would consider the representations within eight weeksafterreceiptoftherepresentationsand passaspeaking order.
Needless to say,ifthe petitioners are still aggrieved,the petitioners may seek such remedy as available tothem in accordance with law.
The writpetitions are disposed ofin the above terms.
~i T T ^
G.S.SISTANI,J
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI,J
FEBRUARY 11,2020 pst
W.P.(C)838/2020 etc. j/j
JUDGMENT