Harender Singh v. Union of India

Delhi High Court · 29 Jan 2018 · 2018:DHC:9201-DB
Hima Kohli; Rekha Palli
W.P.(C) 8897/2017 and W.P.(C) 8907/2017
2018:DHC:9201-DB
administrative appeal_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court allowed petitions directing respondents to re-fix petitioners' pay and grant second financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme, quashing impugned orders withdrawing earlier benefits.

Full Text
Translation output
•5 •
$~15/and-L6. \ •• ; ' i ;
* IN THE HIGH GQURT OF DELHI AT NEW DEtffl
+:
W.P.(C) 8897/2017 andW.P.(C) 8907/2017
HARENDER SINGH ^ " .....Petitioner feX^NSP RANVIR SINGH r, V, .....Petitioner
^ Through: ]^. Ai±iirChhibber, Advocate.
•' ; • • /'versus
OF INDIA AND ORS. , Respondents.
\ . Through: Mr. R.v. SinhaandJVfr. AmitSinha; .
. .Advocates. , , - . ' . , . CORAM: v/'-
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
:• order
- ; % \ 29;0i.2ai8 ' ^ ?
JUDGMENT

1. The petitioners, who were worldng. in the have filed the pi*esent petitions praying inter-alia for issuance: of- a writ of mandamus, • directing the respondents to re-fix their'pay and further directing the, respondents to grant a second financial upgradatiori to them under the ACP Schemewith all consequential benefits.;. - 2. Learned counsel for the ipetitioners states thatthe facts ofthe preserit ' case are squarely covered by two decisions of co-ordinate Benches ofthis,, Court, i.e., judgment dated 11.10.2017 passed iri, W.P.(C) No.9359/2016, er^titled SI/GD Shambhoo vs. Union of India and Ors. and other connected ^ cases, and judgment dated 12,01.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.332/2017. •entitled Jas Ram vs. Union ofIndia and Ors. and other connected cases. W.P:(C) 8897/2017and W.P.(C) 8907/2017: - - Page1of[2] 2018:DHC:9201-DB -:-(r; 3.^ Copies of the aforesaidjudgments have been handed'over by learned counsel for the petitioners to the learned counsel for the respondents and |also furnished to us.;

4. •; Mr. Sinlia, learned counsel for the"respondents fairly states that the. facts of the present petitions are no different from those referred to in the vcaptioned,matters..: 5. Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 08.10.2015 passed by the respondents, in both the cases, withdrawing; the earlier order dated 30.04.2015^,quashed and set aside. Furtherj the respondents are directed to re-fix the salaries of the petitioners in terms of the earher.order dated 30.04.2Q15, as per Clause I Rule 7(i)(A) of the GCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.'.

6. ' The.petitions are disposed,of. The parties are left to bear their ovm. costs.. > • JANUARY 29,2018 n^rkb tV.P.(Cj 8897/2017and W.P.(C) 8907/2017 HIMAKOHLI, J REKH Page 2 of[2],