Shri Satyapal Tyagi vs Government Of India & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 2346 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+            LPA No.273 of 2009 & C.M. No.8267/2009

        SHRI SATYAPAL TYAGI                             ..... Appellant
                       Through:       Mr. D.K. Garg & Dr. Bheem
                                      Pratap Singh, Advocates.

                         Versus

        GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS.                    ..... Respondents
                     Through:  None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL

                          ORDER

% 29.05.2009

1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned

single Judge dated 1st July, 2008.

2. The appellants (original petitioners in the writ petition) had

prayed for a direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus for

granting them pay scales as recommended by the Fourth Pay

Commission as well as the Departmental Anomalies Committee. The

appellant had primarily sought four reliefs i.e. (a) directions for

granting the pay scale as applicable to the Research Analysts on the

basis of recommendations made by the Fourth Pay Commission and

the Departmental Anomalies Committee constituted under the

Chairmanship of Dr. Gangadhar Jha; (b) directions for grant of entire

arrears of revised pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1986; (c) to grant same pay

scale to the petitioner No.3 as to the Accounts and Administrative

Officer with the right to recover the amount as paid in excess to the

Accounts and Administrative Officer and (d) to grant promotion to

petitioner No.3 to further higher post.

3. The learned single Judge after considering the rival contentions

in detail rightly came to the conclusion that the Central Government,

at no stage, had considered the recommendations made by the

Anomalies Committee headed by Dr. Gangadhar Jha and the stand

taken about the recommendations made by this Committee having

become insignificant as in the meantime, recommendations of the

Pay Commission came into being for their implementation, was not at

all convincing. The Anomalies Committee was constituted by the

respondent National Institute of Urban Affairs (in short 'NIUA') itself

to prepare a comprehensive report regarding existing anomalies and

proper structure of pay scales to be adopted by the NIUA. The said

Committee had gone into various aspects of anomalies as it existed

then in the pay structure of NIUA in comparison with those of other

similar Autonomous Bodies including the Central Government pay

structure and thereafter made certain recommendations. This

Anomalies Committee had recommended and suggested pay scale of

Research Analyst at Rs. 1640-2900, which was found existing in

various Government offices and Autonomous Research Institutes for

the said post.

4. The learned single Judge correctly held that these

recommendations were implemented w.e.f. 1st January, 1986 in

general and in case of NIUA employees w.e.f. 1st April, 1987 but the

Anomalies Committee gave its report in the year 1992. This, the

learned single Judge has held, would clearly mean that at the time of

fixation of the pay scales of the employees of NIUA including the

Research Analyst, the report of the said Anomalies Committee was

not before the Central Government. The learned single Judge thus

rightly observed that once NIUA found certain anomalies under the

pay structure of the NIUA employees vis-à-vis other Government

Autonomous Bodies and Government employees then when the said

Anomalies Committee made certain suggestions to rectify the said

anomalies, the better course for the Central Government was to at

least examine the said recommendations made by the Anomalies

Committee instead of completely ignoring the same thus making the

recommendations redundant. The learned single Judge, in our view,

correctly directed the matter to be remitted back to the respondents

for reconsideration of the matter afresh after properly examining and

evaluating the recommendations made by the Anomalies Committee

in its report dated 14th December, 1992. The respondents were

directed to take their decision within a period of two months from the

date of the order of the learned single Judge.

5. The appellant had also filed a Contempt Case No. 150 of 2009

alleging willful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 1 st July,

2009. The appellant contended in the contempt petition that by

virtue of a fresh order dated 19th September, 2008, respondent NIUA

had reiterated their decision without considering the report of the

Anomalies Committee. The learned single Judge observed in his

order disposing of the contempt petition that pursuant to the

judgment dated 1st July, 2008, passed by this Court, the respondents

had set up a Committee which in turn had examined the report of the

Anomalies Committee. The Government of India Ministry of Urban

Development had requested the NIUA to reconsider the matter afresh

by constituting a Committee. In pursuance to the same, NIUA had

set up a Committee to examine the matter afresh in accordance with

the directions issued by this Court. On 19th September, 2008, the

said Committee concluded that the stand of the NIUA remained the

same, as according to it, the pay scale could not be changed unless

the Ministry agreed to reconsider its case. The learned Judge thus

concluded that the respondents had in compliance with the Court's

judgment dated 1st July, 2008 considered the report of the Anomalies

Committee and no contempt had been committed by the

respondents. The learned Judge thus while disposing of the

contempt petition also granted the liberty to the appellant to

challenge the decision of the NIUA dated 19th September, 2008 in

accordance with law.

6. We see no infirmity in the order and directions of the learned

single Judge to warrant any interference by us. The appeal is

accordingly dismissed. The pending application stands disposed of

as well.

CHIEF JUSTICE

NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J.

MAY 29, 2009 sb