Vinod Kumar Trivedi v. Union of India & Ors.

High Court of Relhi At New Delhi · 18 Dec 2019 · 2019:DHC:7707-DB
S. Muralidhar; Talwant Singh
W.P.(C)1425/2019 and connected matters
2019:DHC:7707-DB
administrative appeal_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court directed retrospective adjustment of petitioners' seniority and appointment dates in CAPFs recruitment to align with their batch mates, granting consequential pay fixation benefits without arrears.

Full Text
Translation output
f
<c
S'-15, 18,23,24 and 29
* IN I'HE HIGH COURT OF RELHI AT NEW DELHI
-t" Vi^.F.(C)1425/2019
V^INOD KUMAR TRIVEDI Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ankiir Chhibber,Advocate.
VERSUS
UNION OF 1NDIA^& OR.S Respondents
■. Through: IVh'. .P.S. Singh and Mir Rahul Arya, A.dvocates.
+ W.F.(C)4584/2019
KAMLESH KUMAiR SAHU Petitioner through: Mir Anlcur Chhibber,Advocate.
.
VERSUS
UNK)N OFINDIA ANIl/aRS. ■ ..... Respondents
Througli': Mr. Jitesh Vikram Sri^'astav, Advocate for UOI.
+ W.F.(C)8017/2019
GO?AL KUMAR GUPDA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ari]<ur Chhibber, Advocate.
VERSUS
UNION OFINDIA AND.ORS.; ■ ' Respondents
Through: Mr. A.shish Jain, Advocate for R-1 to
WJ\(C)]425/2619aitd connected matters Page1 of4
2019:DHC:7707-DB
+ W.P.(C)8018/2019
MUKESH KUMAR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ankur Chhibber,Advocate.
VERSUS
UNION OFINDIA AND ORS. Respondents
Through: Mr. Ashish Jain, Advocate for R-1 to
7' 3.
+ W.P.(C)11972/2019
INTIRANIL DUTTA & ORS Petitioners
Through: Mr.Ankur Chhibber,Advocate.
VERSUS
UNION OF IITDIA & ORS Respondents
Through: Mr. Atul Batra and Mi*. Rahul Aiya, Advocates.
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR
KJSTICE TALWANT SINGH
/ % 18.12.2019
ORDER

1. A short issue is involved in these matters concerns the appropriate seniority that has to be granted to each of the Petitioners along with their respective batch mates.The Petitioners appeared in the written examinations for the posts in the CAPFs on various dates.

2. The Court is ofthe view thatthese cases are completely covered in favour ofthe Petitioners by a commonjudgment ofthis Court dated 6^*^ December, W.P.(C)]425/2019and connected matters Page2of[4] 2018 passed in W.P.(C)No.6275/2016{MVSheshagiri v. Union ofIndia) and W.?.(C) 6312/2016 (/(' Bhaskam Rao v. Union ofIndia) and the judgment dated 28""November,2017in W..P.(C)8546/2016(Anjan Kumar Maiidai V, Union of India), which the Respondents have already implemented. \ 3. Consistent with the abovejudgments,tlie prayers in the present petitions are allowed and directions are issued to the Respondents to treat each ofthe Petitioners ad having been appointed along with their batch mates. In other words each ofthe Petitioners wiil be treated as having been appointed as under:' ^

(i) The Petitioner in W.P.(C) 1425/2019 v/ill be considered as having been appointed with effectfrom December,2006 instead ofDecember,2008 (ii)The Petitioner in W.P.(C)4584/2019 will be coiisidered as having been P'' appointed with effectfrom 15*''^ May,2010instead off0^^'September,2011•

(iii) The Petitioner in W.P.(C)8017/2019 will be considered as having been appointed with effect from 8^'^ November,2001 instead of 28^'' December, 2002:' ■ V

(iv) The Petitioners in W.P.(C) 11972/2019 will be" considered as having been appointed v/ith effect from December,2002 instead of 1"'^ November,

2004. W.P. (C)J425/2019andconnected matters Page3of[4] (v)The Petitioner in W.P.(C)8018/2019 will be considered as having been appointed with effect from 8^*^ November,2001 instead of28^*^ December,

2002.

4. The Petitioners' notional seniority and pay fixation will be reckoned from the aforesaid dates, with all consequential benefits. They will not, however, be entitled to any arrears ofpay and allowances.

5. The petitions stand disposed ofaccordingly.

DECEMBER 18,2019

M. S.MURALIDHAR,J.