Full Text
W.P.(C)2092/2018, W.P.(C) 2093/2018, W.P.(C) 2099/2018, W.P.(C) 2100/2018, W.P.(C) 2107/2018, W.P.(C), 2109/2018, W.P.(C) 2118/2018
MAN SINGH RAGHAV Petitioner BALI CHAND Petitioner
SATYAVEER SINGH Petitioner TRILOK SINGH Petitioner
AJMER SINGH Petitioner NETRA PAL SINGH Petitioner
KHEM SINGH Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhiber and Mr. Bhanu Gupta, Advocates.
Through: Ms. SupamaSrivastava, CGSC with Mr. Tushar Mathur, Advocate.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
22.05.2018
ORDER
1. On 07.3.2018, when this batch of writ petitions came up for hearing, Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that all these petitions are squarely covered by a decision ofthis court delivered on 12.1.2018, in W.P.(C) No. 332/2017 entitled Jas RamVs. Union of India & Ors. and other connected matters. Learned counsel for the respondents had sought permission to obtain necessary instructions in this regard. fV.P.(C) 2092/2018 &connected matters Page[1] of[4] 2018:DHC:8746-DB
2. Today, Ms. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents states that despite the efforts made by her, the Department has not conveyed any clear instructions.
3. In Jas Ram (supra) and other connected matters, a Division Bench, of which one of us (Hima Kohli, J.) was a member, had noticed that the legal issue raised in the said petitions was squarely covered by an earlier judgment dated 11.10.2017 in W.P.(C) No. 9359/2016 entitled "SI/GD Shambhoo vs. Union of India & Ors." and other connected cases. In the said case, the Division Bench had referred to a decision in W.P.(C) NO. 4258/2013 entitled "Gai Rai Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India" and W.P.(C) No. 6650/2013 entitled "Surai Bhan & Ors. vs. Union of India", where Rules 5, 6 and 7 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 enacted on 29.8.2008, but applied retrospectively from 01.01.2006, were interpreted.
4. Having regard to the series of decisions in different cases where the issue in hand relating to incorrect fixation ofpay of force personnel has been examined and orders passed in favour of the petitioners therein, who are similarly placed as the petitioners in the instant petitions, there is no good reason to deny the benefit to the petitioners on the same lines as granted in the matter of Jas Ram Csupra). For the purpose of ready reference, the operative paras inthe case ofJas Ram (supra) are reproduced herein below:-
10. Accordingly, the present petitions are disposed of by holding that thepetitioners herein shall be entitled to the benefit of clause (i) appended to Rule 7(1)(A) of the 2008 Rules, wherever it is more beneficial. Necessary compliances shall be made by the respondents within four months from today. In the event, compliance is made beyond theperiod granted above, the respondents shall pay simple interest @ 5% per annum to the petitionersfrom the date ofpassing ofthe order, till thepayment is released.
11. Thepetitions are disposed of No orders as to costs. "
5. Reverting to the facts of the instant batch of petitions, the petitioners have been granted the benefit under the ACP Scheme in the pay scale of Rs.5500-175-9000/- and their pay was fixed by the respondents at Rs.10230/- plus Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-, which was further revised to Rs.14700/- plus Grade Pay of Rs.4600/-. The relevant details granting the above benefits to each of the petitioners are given below in a tabulated form:- Sr. No. Name ofPetitioner Date oforder granting benefit under ACP Scheme Benefit under ACP scheme granted w.e.f. Pay revised to Grade Pay of Rs.4600/w.e.f.
1. Man Singh Raghav inW.P.(C) No.2092/2018 30.04.2015, 07.05.2007 01.07.2015
2. Bali Chand in W.P.(C)No.2093/2018 30.04.2015 17.05.2007 01.07.2015
3. Satyaveer Singh in W.P.(C) No.2099/2018 30.04.2015 07.05.2007 01.07.2015
4. Trilok Singh inW.P.(C) No.2100/2018 30.04.2015 27.05.2007 01.07.2015
5. Ajmer Singh inW.P.(C) No.2107/2018 01.05.2015 04.02.2007 01.07.2015
6. Netra Pal Singh inW.P.(C)No.2109/2018 01.05.2015 05.03.2007 01.07.2015
7. Khem Singh in W.P.(C) No.2118/2018 30.04.2015 16.01.2006 01.07.2015 W.P.(C) 2092/2018 & connected matters Page 3 of[4] tt (#
6. The present petitions are allowed in terms of the decision of this court in Jas Ram's case (Supra), The orders dated 19.10.2015 fixing the pay of the petitioner and impugned in these batch petitions are set aside. The orders dated 30.04.2015 and 01.05.2015 referred to hereinabove, whereunder the benefit ofclause (i) appended to Rule 7(1)(A) ofthe 2008 Rules, was granted to the petitioners, being more beneficial, are upheld.
7. Necessary compliances shall be made by the respondents within four months from today. In the event the respondents exceed the said period, then interest @8% per annum shall be payable to the petitioners from the date of passing ofthe order, till the payments are released.
8. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with no orders as to costs. MAY 22,2018 ap/sk fK KP.fO 2092/2018 &eaimecledmattm HIMA KOHLI, J PkATIBHARANI,J Page 4 of[4]