Delhi High Court
Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi, Through Dig ... vs Central Jail Employees ... on 11 July, 2011
Author: Anil Kumar
* 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
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.
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
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‟
