SI (GD) Hanumant Singh Shekhawat v. Union of India

2. These writ petitions by Sub-Inspectors ('SI') of the CRPF who were initially recruited as Constable (GD) pray for the quashing of a letter dated 27"^ March 2015, fixing their pay scale at Rs.9,300/- plus grade pay of Rs.4,200/- with effect from S'*" January 2008. According to the Petitioners, their pay ought to be fixed at Rs. 10,230/- plus grade pay of Rs.4,200/- W.P.(C) 13575/2018 &connectedmatters. Page 2of[5] (Rs.1,500/- X[1].86) which was due to them with effect from 8' January 2008 pursuant to the grant ofbenefit ofthe second financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme ('ACP Scheme') with all consequential benefits. It may be noticed here that the aforementioned dates, which are pertinent to the case ofthe Petitioner in W.P.(C) 13575/2018, would vary in respect ofthe other three Petitioners who are also seeking similar relief

3. All the Petitioners placed reliance on the judgments dated 1''October 2017 passed by this Court in SI/GD Shamhhu v. Union ofIndia W.P.(C) 9359/2016 & Connected Matters] as well as the judgment dated 12'*^ January 2018 in Jas Ram v. Union of India [W.P.(C) 332/2017 & Connected Matters^.

4. This Court is of the view that the present petitions stand completely covered by the aforementioned decisions ofthis Court. The background to these petitions has been noticed in the judgment ofthis Court in Shantbhu (supra). The Petitioners therein, as the present Petitioners, were granted the benefit of second financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme in the year 2015 under different orders and from dates prior to 2006 as and when each of them completed 24 years of service. In terms of Rules 5 and 7 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules 2008 ('2008 Rules'), an option was given to government servants to continue to draw pay in the existing pay scale until the date on which the next subsequent increment in the existent scale is earned or till he vacates his post or seeks to withdraw that scale. In terms ofthe second proviso to Rule 5, a government servant placed in a higher pay scale on account of promotion, upgradation of pay, etc. W.P.(C) 13575/2018 &connected matters. ^ L between 1''January 2006 and 29'^ August 2008 (the date ofnotification of the 2008 Rules) was given an option to switch over to the revised pay structure from the date of his promotion, upgradation, etc. Rule 7 of the 2008 Rules related to the fixation of initial pay in the revised pay structure. Agovernment servant would, in terms of Rule 6(3), be governed by the revised pay structure under the 2008 Rules with effect from 1 January 2006, unless it was directed by a special order that his pay would be fixed separately. Rule 7(l)(A)(i) stated that the pay band/pay scale would be determined by multiplying the existing basic pay as on 1'^ January 2006 by a factor of 1.86 and rounding offthe resultant figure to the next multiple of ten. Clause (ii) states that when aminimum revised pay band/pay scale was more than the amount arrived atby applying the aforesaid multiplier, the pay wouldbe fixed at the minimum revised pay band/pay scale.

5. The grievance in Shambhu (supra) was that, although the Respondents had correctly fixed the revised pay scale at Rs.10,230/- by using the multiplier of 1.86 to the existing basic pay as on 1''January 2006, subsequently, they fixed the pay scale at the minimum pay band of Rs.9,300/-. It was pointed out before this Court that the petitioners therein did not have to exercise their option under the proviso to Rule 5on or before 31'' March 2013 because the second financial upgradation benefit was given to them only in 2015.

6. The Court accepted the above plea and directed that those Petitioners would be restored to the pay scale of Rs. 10,230/- plus grade pay of Rs.4,200/-. IV.P.(C) 13575/2018 & connectedmatters. s

7. The Court finds that the facts ofthe present case are nodifferent. There is no reason why the present Petitioners should not be granted the same benefit that was granted to the petitioners in Shambhu (supra). Mr. Chhibber points out that vis-a-vis the order dated V' October 2017 in Shambhu (supra), the contempt petition was filed in this Court and astatement has been made by the Respondents in those proceedings that they are implementing the decision of this Court in Shambhu (supra). Further, in the case of one Harkesh Tyagi who was a similarly placed petitioner in W.P.(C) 341/2017. it was noticed by the Court that the Respondents had already granted the benefit of exercising the option although he had been granted the second financial upgradation only in March 2015.

8. Consequently, these writ petitions are allowed. The Respondents are directed to fix the pay scales ofthe Petitioners atRs.10,230/- with grade pay ofRs.4,200/- with effect from the date on which each ofthem completed 24 years of service. The consequential orders shall be issued by the Respondents within aperiod ofeight weeks from today. \

S. MURALIDHAR, J.