Mohd. Naseemuddin & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

1. The petitioners were enrolled under CRPF as Followers in various trades such as Steward, Mali, Kahar, Chowkidar, Masalchi, Washerman, Carpenter, Cook etc. on various dates between December 29, 1983 till December 03, 2005. All of them were admittedly combatised and are now designated as Constables. As Followers, the petitioners were holding Group-D posts. As a result of the force being combatised, re-mustered as Constables, the petitioners are now holding Group-C post. With reference to their existing pay scale before the implementation of the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission, with effect from January 01, 2006, the petitioners were placed in PB-I (`5200-20200) + Grade Pay `2000. Their basic pay in the applicable Pay Band has been fixed at less than `6460. The grievance is to said fact. The petitioners pray that the respondents be directed to fix their basic pay with effect from 2016:DHC:5238-DB January 01, 2006 at `6460/-.

2. The respondents justify their action by referring to CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.

3. The CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 require basic pay to be fixed as of January 01, 2006 by multiplying with a factor of 1.86 the basic pay received in the pay scale hithertofore applicable. The resultant figure to be rounded off to 10. Concededly, the Revised Pay Rules envisage that for those who are paid the Grade Pay `2000, minimum pay in the Pay Band would be `6460. This means that if a direct recruit is appointed on or after January 01, 2006 the minimum basic pay in PB-I would be `6460 + GP `2000.

4. Thus, obviously an anomaly would come into being for the reason a person enrolled as a Constable on or after January 01, 2006 would get the minimum basic pay of `6460/-. But the petitioners who would be senior to him would get less pay. This anomalous situation has been recognized and rectified by Rule 7(1)(A)(ii) of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 which provides:- “If the minimum of the revised pay band/pay scale is more than the amount arrived at as per (i) above, the pay shall be fixed at the minimum of the revised pay band/pay scale.”

5. It is apparent that the respondents have overlooked the aforesaid clause in the Revised Pay Rules.

6. On the first issue raised in the writ petition we direct the respondents to fix the basic pay of the petitioners as of January 01, 2006 at `6460/-.

7. The second issue which arises is: whether the benefit of the ACP and the MACP scheme should be granted to the petitioners reckoning their service from the date they were appointed as Followers or from the date, after the force was combatised, they were re-mustered as Constables.

8. Whereas, as Followers, petitioners were holding Group-D posts, on re-mustering as Constables, they are holding Group-C posts. The respondents state that the result of re-mustering is akin to the petitioners being promoted.

9. Pertaining to re-mustering, deciding a batch of writ petition on March 05, 2015, lead matter being WP(C) 388/2015 Om Prakash & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors. in which the issue of re-mustering was raised, it was reasoned resulting in a direction being issued, as under:- “14. The only issue which now arises is what is the effect of some of the writ petitioners, such as Om Prakash, the writ petitioner of W.P.(C) No.388/2015, being re-mustered to the rank of Naik or in the cadre of driver trade or in the cadre of radio operator. As per learned counsel for the respondents the 24 year period of service has to be reckoned from the date they were re-mustered and not from the date they joined service initially.

15. Hitherto fore, between the rank of a Constable and a Head Constable there were two posts of Lance Naik and Naik, which posts were subsequently abolished and merged with that of a Head Constable.

16. Now, the department itself is not considering, the appointment given to Constables on re-mustering as Naik or a Lance Naik as a case of promotion, and thus we see no logic to reckon 24 years’ service from the dates noted hereinabove when some of the petitioners and the late husbands of the writ petitioners of W.P.(C) No.1717/2015 were re-mustered.

17. The ACP Scheme is clear. It envisages first ACP benefit after 12 years’ service was rendered and the second benefit after 24 years’ service was rendered if within the first twelve years no promotion could be earned and in 24 years’ service a second promotion could not be earned. Since all petitioners and late husbands of the writ petitioners of W.P.(C) No.1717/2015 had rendered more than 12 years service, reckoned whether with effect from their initial service or from the date they were re-mustered, when the ACP Scheme was introduced in the year 1999 all were granted the benefit of the first financial upgradation with effect from the year 1999 (such who earned a first promotion after 1999 were given anti-dated scales with effect from the year 1999) and when their claims for financial upgradation on completing 24 years service came up, the department only raised one issue: of they not having undergone the pre-promotional course which was essential to be successfully undertaken to earn a promotion. As per all these persons they were denied an opportunity to undergo the pre-promotional course because the department had posted them at places from where they could not be relieved; and none of them had anything to do with their posting orders. This aspect has now been taken care of by the two office orders dated October 27, 2014 and February 16, 2015.

18. We note that all the petitioners have completed the twenty four years of service though they have not undergone the pre-promotional courses. It is the case of the petitioners that they have never been detailed for the said prepromotional courses by the respondents. Thus they are squarely covered by the clarification issued by the respondents vide its clarification dated February 16, 2015.

19. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed issuing a direction to the respondents to grant second ACP benefits to the petitioners and late husbands of writ petitioners of W.P.(C) No.1717/2015 with effect from the date they completed twenty four years service reckoned from the date of initial appointment. The mandamus would be subject to the petitioners and late husbands of writ petitioners of W.P.(C) No.1717/2015 being otherwise found fit for promotion.”

10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing that with effect from January 01, 2006 basic pay of the petitioners be fixed at `6460 + Grade Pay `2000. For purposes of ACP and MACP the length of service would be reckoned from the date the petitioners were appointed as Followers.