* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.8489/2010
% Date of Decision: 11.07.2011
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, .... Petitioner
Through DIG (Prisons)
Through Mr.V.K.Tandon, Advocate.
Versus
Central Jail Employees Association, .... Respondents
Through General Secretary, Central Jail Tihar,
New Delhi & Ors.
Through Mr. Shyam Babu, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may YES
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be NO
reported in the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
1. The petitioner, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, has challenged the order dated 13th July, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.3721 of 2009 and in MA No.2634 of 2009, titled as „Central Jail Employees Association & Ors. v. Govt. of WP(C) 8489/2010 Page 1 of 4 NCT of Delhi, through its Chief Secretary and Ors.‟, directing the petitioner to accord higher pay band and grade of pay to the respondents and remitting the matter back to the petitioner, including the Ministry of Finance, to re-examine the claim of the respondents in the light of the High Court‟s order passed in W.P.(C) No.1764/2007 upholding the claim of parity in washing allowance, ration money between the police personnels and personals of the prison department.
2. Directions of the Tribunal to the petitioner as given in para 15 of the impugned order are as under:-
"As we are not expert body and it is for the Ministry of Finance to accord higher pay band and grade pay to the applicants, we allow this OA to the extent that impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondents, including Ministry of Finance, to re-examine the claim of applicants in the light of the High Court‟s order (Supra) for grant of higher pay band and grade pay and in case of grant the same would relate back at par with their counterparts, with arrears w.e.f. 1.1.2006. This re- examination shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs."
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the matter has been remitted back to the respondents, including to the Ministry of Finance, to re-examine the claim of the respondents, however, in the same order the Tribunal has, in a way, adjudicated and accorded higher pay band and grade of pay to the respondents.
WP(C) 8489/2010 Page 2 of 4
4. According to the petitioner such mandate could not be issued by the Tribunal to accord higher pay band and grade of pay to the respondents when the matter has been simultaneously remitted back to the petitioner, including to the Ministry of Finance, to re-examine the claim and to consider all the relevant aspects and material pertaining to the claims of the respondents.
5. In the circumstances, after some arguments, learned counsel for the respondents is also of the view that the petitioner should consider the various reports of various expert bodies in this regard considering the working of police personals and prison employees as well as other relevant materials and various judgments regarding the parity given between the prison staff and police personnels independently including the judgment given in respect of pay scale, ration money, and washing allowance by this Court.
6. In view of the above noted reasons and the pleas of the parties, the order dated 13.07.2010 impugned by the petitioner is modified to the extent that the matter is remitted back to the petitioner, including to the Ministry of Finance, to re-examine the claim of the respondents for higher pay band and grade of pay after considering the reports of various expert bodies and all other relevant materials as stated WP(C) 8489/2010 Page 3 of 4 hereinabove. Needful be done within three months. The impugned order is modified accordingly and the writ petition is disposed of in terms of whatsoever is stated hereinbefore. Considering the facts and circumstances, the parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.
7. In view of the modification of impugned order dated 13th July, 2010, interim order dated 21st December, 2001 does not survive. The application for interim orders by the petitioner is also disposed of.
With these above observations, the present writ petition and all the pending applications are disposed of.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
July 11, 2011 „vk‟ WP(C) 8489/2010 Page 4 of 4