Rajbir Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

1. These writ petitions by Sub-Inspectors ('SI') of the CRPF who were initially recruited as Constable (GD) pray for the quashing ofaletter dated 8"'April 2015, fixing their pay scale at Rs.9,300/- plus grade pay of Rs.4,200/- with effect from 27'' June 2007. According to the Petitioners, their pay ought to be fixed at Rs.10,230/- plus grade pay of Rs.4200/- (Rs.1500/- X 1,86) which was due to them with effect from 27'"June2007 pursuanttothe grantofbenefitofthe secondfinancialupgradationunderthe Assured CareerProgressionScheme('ACP Scheme') with all consequential benefits. It may be noticed here that the aforementioned dates, which are pertinent to the case ofthe Petitioner in WP(C) 9893/2018, would vary in respect ofthe otherthreePetitionerswho are alsoseekingsimilarrelief. W.P.(C) 9893/2018 &connected matters

2. All the Petitioners placed reliance on the judgments dated 11^*^ October 2017 passed by this Court in SI/GD Shambhu v. Union of India [W.P.(C) 9359/2016 & connected matters] as well as the judgment dated 12'*^ January 2018 inJas Ram v. Union ofIndia [W.P.(C) 332/2017 & connected matters].

3. In fact, when notices were issued in these petitions by this Court on 19^^ September 2018, time was sought by learned counsel for the Respondents to confirm whether the present case is covered by the aforementioned decisions of this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the Respondents pleaded for more time stating that the matter was being considered by the Ministry of Home Affairs ('MHA'). For the reasons explainedhereafter, this Court does not considerit necessary to fiirther adjourn these cases since it is of the view that they stand completely covered bythe aforementioned decisions ofthis Court.

5. Thebackground to thesepetitions has beennoticed in thejudgment ofthis Court in Shambhu (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 W.P.(C) 9893/2018 & connected matters Page 3 of[5] his post or seeks to withdraw that scale. In terms of the second proviso to Rule 5, a government servant placed in a higher pay scale on account of promotion, upgradation of pay, etc. between 1®'January 2006 and 29^^ August 2008 (the date of notification 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 ofthe 2008 Rules related to the fixation of initial pay in the revised pay structure. A government servant would, in terms of Rule 6(3), be governed by the revised pay structure under the 2008 Rules with effect from 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 10. Clause (ii) states that when a minimum revised pay band/pay scale was more than the amount arrived at by applying the aforesaid multiplier, the pay would be fixed at the minimum revised pay band/pay scale.

6. 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 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 5 on or before 31®^ March 2013 because the second financial upgradation benefit was given to them only in 2015. W.P.(C) 9893/2018 & connected matters Page 4 of[5]

7. 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/-.

8. The Court finds that the facts of the present case are no different. 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. Chibber points out that vis-a-vis the order dated 11^*^ October 2017 in Shambhu {supra) the contempt petition was filed in this Court and a statement 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.

9. Consequently, these writ petitions are allowed. The Respondents are directed to fix the pay scales ofthe Petitioners at Rs.10,230/- with grade pay of Rs.4200/- with effect from the date on which each of them completed 24 years of service. The consequential orders shall be issued by the Respondents within a period of eight weeks from today.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.