Hd. Const. Salig Ram vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 1693 Del

JUDGMENT

J.D. Kapoor, J.

1. The limited relief sought through this petition is confined to re-fixing of basic salary of the petition at Rs. 3880/- instead of Rs. 3795/- in the pay scale of Rs. 3200-4900.

2. The petitioner was initially recruited as a Constable in the CISF on 12.6.1976 and was promoted to the post of Naik in October, 1992. Vide order dated 13.6.1997 petitioner was transferred from National Fertilizer Limited, Nangal (Punjab) to 5th Reserve Batallion, Ghaziabad. On 14.7.1997 when the petitioner was posted at Ghaziabad, orders were issued promoting 543 Naiks including him to the post of Head Constable in the revised pay of Rs. 3200-4900. He was given posting from Nangal (though posted at Ghaziabad) to 3rd Reserve Batallion, Bhilai. On such posting in the promotion post of Head Constable his basic pay was to be fixed at Rs. 3880/- including special increment. Unfortunately, the petitioner was not relieved by his controlling Officer because of error in his promotion order inasmuch as he was posted at Ghaziabad but in the promotion order he was wrongly shown to be posted at Nangal which, according to the controlling Officer, required amendment where after he could only be relieved for joining. It took more than two months to carry out the amendment and the petitioner was relieved on 1.10.1997 and was given 12 days journey time and 15 days annual leave and was directed to report for duty on 27.10.1997 to join the promoted post of Head Constable. Accordingly, he joined duty on 27.10.1997 as Head Constable. This rank was given to him on account of promotion order dated 14.7.1997. His salary was fixed at basic pay of Rs. 3795/- in the aforesaid scale whereas all other Naiks including his juniors who were promoted by the same order to the post of Head Constable were fixed at basic pay of Rs. 3880/-. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner made representation before the Commandant who appreciated his grievance that he could not be placed at a lower pay compared to his juniors who were simultaneously promoted to the post of Head Constable vide order dated 14.7.1997 and accordingly fixed his pay at Rs. 3880/- as admissible to all others who were promoted by the said order.

3. However, in the meantime, vide order dated 10.10.1997 the post of Naik was upgraded to the post of Head Constable and those Naiks who were promoted to the post of Head Constable prior to 10.10.1997 were given special increment whereas special increment was not made available to Head Constables who were absorbed after 10.10.1997. Since the petitioner was posted at Bhilai on promotion from Nangal/Ghaziabad, his pay was reduced and re fixed at Rs. 3795/- on the ground that petitioner was not holding the rank of Head Constable as on 10.10.1997 and as such special increment was not admissible to him. This gave rise to representation by the petitioner to the Deputy Inspector General, CISF, Bhilai requesting for restoration of his pay at Rs. 3880/- on the ground that the petitioner could not be punished for administrative error or delay inasmuch as if in the promotion order dated 14.7.1997 his the then place of posting had been correctly shown as Ghaziabad instead of Nangal, the petitioner would have been timely relieved and joined his posting at Bhilai. This has not only deprived him his seniority but also affected his pay adversely. However, his representation did not find favor with the Deputy Inspector General, CISF who rejected it on the ground that he was not eligible for special increment as he was promoted to the rank of Head Constable w.e.f. 28.10.1997, the date when he took over charge as the special pay is eligible only to those who were holding such rank on 10.10.1997.

4. The facts are so evident that they admit no counter or challenge as to the right of the petitioner to get special increment in the promoted post of Head Constable. The very fact that the post of Naik was upgraded to the post of Head Constable on 10.10.1997 and had the promotion order dated 14.7.1997 correctly mentioned the posting of petitioner at Ghaziabad instead of Nangal, he would have like others been timely relieved and joined his new posting at Bhilai prior to 10.10.1997. On the contrary the Controlling Officer did not relieve him because of the said lapse and asked for the amendment in the order which took more than two months. Such delay cannot be permitted to operate adversely or to the detriment of the petitioner. Nobody can be forced to pay the price for the fault or wrong of others. In the instant case typographical lapse or error occurred on account of the negligence of the authority in issuing promotion/transfer orders which resulted in holding back the petitioner at his original post as the Controlling Officer asked for amendment of the said error which took two months. To deny the special increment to the petitioner which was granted to all others who were as many as 543 and many of them were juniors to him was an act of gross injustice as the petitioner on the one hand bore the brunt of remaining at the original post for two months whereas his juniors were holding the rank of Head Constable and on the other hand he suffered monetarilly by being deprived of special increment.

5. Mere incidence of taking charge of the promoted post of Head Constable on 28.10.1997 could not have been allowed to stand in the way of the petitioner or create unpassable obstacle as his holding of the post of Naik should have been related back to the date when others not only similarly placed but juniors to him took over the charge of the promoted post. We do not find any reason whatsoever as to what made the authorities to take highly hypertechnical and adversarial view and that too stemming from their own wrong to deny the original claim of the petitioner. Denial of special increment has the effect of not only recurring loss but also affects the irreparable damage of being slided down to large number of his juniors. The authority denying this right perhaps became completely oblivious of the fact that it was their own act of omission or commission which prevented the petitioner from taking over the post of Head Constable prior to the crucial date i.e. 10.10.1997. This is a case which not only suffers from utter non-application of mind but non-appreciation of facts and non-redressal of the grievance of the petitioner in rational and correct perspective. So much so, the recommendation of the Commandant who took not only legally but pragmatically correct view were also ignored.

6. As a consequence the petition is allowed with the following reliefs:

The salary of the petitioner be re-fixed at Rs. 3880/- in the revised pay scale of Rs.

3200-4900 w.e.f. 28.10.1997 with all consequential benefits including the arrears accruing from such re-fixation.