Surender Pal and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

2. Petitioner No.1 in W.P. (C) 10080 of2018 joined the CRPF as Constable W.P.(C) 1080012018 Page 1 of[4] 2018:DHC:8833-DB on 14thApril 1983 and was later promoted as Head Constable, Sub-Inspector and is at present Inspector GD with the 99 Batallion RAF. Petitioner No.2 in th W.P. (C) 10080 of 2018 joined the CRPF as Constable on 25 May 1983 as Constable and is also at present Inspector GD with the 99 Batallion RAF. The Petitioners in the companion petition, W.P. (C) 11626 of 2018, also began as Constables in the CRPF and are now Inspectors either with the CRPF or the 99 Batalllion RAF. The issue common to both peititons arises as a result of the revision of pay scales pursuant to the 5th Pay Commission th and later, the 6 Pay Commission.

3. The issue in these petitions is no longer res integra. It was first considered th • in Gajraj Singh v. Union of India [decision dated 6 September 2013 in W.P.(C) 4258/2013] and Suraj Bhan v. Union of India [decision dated 11th October 2013 in W.P.(C) 6550/2013]. Subsequently, in SIIGD Shambhu v. Union of India [decision dated 11 th October 2017 in W.P.(C) 9359/2016], after referring to the earlier decisions, this Court interpreted Rules 5, 6, and 7 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) 5t Rules 2008 which came into retrospective effect on 1 January 2006 and allowed those writ petitions, issuing directions for refixing the pay scales as prayed for by those Petitioners.

4. The main objection in all these cases was that the Petitioners had not exercised their options but as noted by this Court in several decisions, they could not have exercised such options without their subsequent promotions W.P.(C) 1080012018 Page 2 of[4] being granted. As recently as January 2018, the Court again in another decision in and Jas Ram v. Union of India [decision dated Ith January 2018 in W.P.(C) 332/2017] again followed the earlier decisions and, in the case pertaining to Sub-Inspectors of the CRPF, directed the grant of 2nd.of benefit financial upgradation in the ACP Scheme with all consequential benefits. A direction was issued to the Respondents to pass consequential orders after declaring that the Petitioners would be entitled to • clause (i) appended Rules (7)(1)(A) of the 2008 Rules.

5. The issue was recently considered by this Court in its decision in Rajbir Singh v. Union of India [decision dated Ith November 2018 m W.P.(C) 9893/2018] and the following observations were made:

W.P.(C) 1080012018 Page 30/4 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) 34112017, 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."

6. The cases of all these Petitioners are the same. Following the aforementioned decisions, these petitions are allowed and a direction is issued to the Respondents to refix the basic pay of all the Petitioners at Rs.10,230/- + RsA,200/- Grade Pay from the date of completion of 24 years of service while granting the benefit of 2nd ACP to the Petitioners. The consequential order be passed within a period of 8 weeks from today. In case the payments including arrears are not made within the time stipulated, the Respondents shall additionally pay simple interest @ 9% per annum on the sum due to the Petitioners for the period of delay in ~ayment. s. MURALIDHAR, J. SANJ~J' NOVEMBER 15,2018. Pallavi