Dftry Bhimraj Singh & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4842 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                             Date of Decision : 28th September, 2011

+                         W.P.(C) 3930/2011

        DFTRY BHIMRAJ SINGH & ORS.             ..... Petitioners
            Through: Mrs.Rekha Palli, Mrs. Punam Singh
                      and Mrs. Amrita Prakash, Advocates.

                     versus

        UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                 ..... Respondents
            Through: Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, A.S.G. with
                       Mr.Ravinder Agarwal,
                       Mr.Bhagat Singh, Mr.Vidit Gupta and
                       Ms.Namrata Sharma, Advocates

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
        to see the judgment?

     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. Petitioners were enrolled in CRPF to various Group-D posts such as cook, peon, farash and daftry. Persons holding these posts are popularly called 'followers' in CRPF.

2. The 6th Central Pay Commission, vide Chapter 2.2 of its report recommended that certain posts in Group-D be upgraded to Group-C and modified minimum educational qualifications to Class 10 pass and for existing employees

recommended an in-house intensive training. Hithertofore applicable pay scales came to be replaced by pay bands with a grade pay when recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission were implemented. The lowest pay band '- 1S' carried the pay `4440-7440 with four different grade pays, being `1,300, `1,400, `1,600 and `1,650. The next above pay band i.e. 'PB-1' carried the pay `5,200-20,200 with 5 different grade pays, being `1,800, `1,900, `2,000, `2,400 and `2,800.

3. With effect from 1.1.2006 i.e. the date wherefrom recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission were made retrospectively applicable, the post held by the petitioners was converted into a Group-C post i.e. the petitioners were combatised and placed in PB-1 i.e. `5,200- `20,200 with grade pay `1,800.

4. It is apparent that CRPF, the employer of the petitioners, while placing petitioners in PB-1 gave benefit of the lowest grade pay applicable in PB-1. The petitioners raised an issue by stating that after giving combatised training to them they should be placed in the same pay band plus given same grade pay as given to Constables in CRPF because post of Constable is the lowest post in CRPF and highlighted that Constables in CRPF being placed in PB-1 were getting grade pay of `2,000/- per month and highlighted that another Central Para-Military Force i.e. CISF had placed all its followers in PB-1 with grade pay of `2,000/- per month.

5. Partial success met the petitioners when the department started paying them grade pay in sum of `2,000/- per month

w.e.f. 29th October, 2009 and denied similar benefit for the prior date.

6. Filing the instant writ petition it is urged that there is no rationale to grant grade pay @ `2,000/- per month effective from 29.10.2009 and deny benefit from 1.1.2006 i.e. the date with effect from which the recommendations of 6 th Central Pay Commission were implemented.

7. As per the respondents the rationale for the said date is that after recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commissioner were received, they were processed, they were accepted with or without modifications. Qua followers, placement in the higher pay scale required training to be imparted and thus when, post-training, the followers attained parity with the others with respect to their skills, benefit of higher grade pay was granted w.e.f. 29.10.2009.

8. Now, the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission which were accepted by the Government were not that such Group-D employees who were upgraded to Group-C and required to be placed in PB-1 should be paid salary in PB-1 and applicable grade pay from the date they qualified the training. Qualification at the training was not a condition precedent but was a condition antecedent. Thus, the petitioners have a point.

9. The matter can be looked at differently. If attaining higher skill was the condition precedent to be placed in the higher pay scale, the respondents have to answer why the petitioners were placed in PB-1 and not -1S pay band? There is no answer.

10. The matter can yet be looked at differently from a third angle. Where is the rationale to give the petitioners the lowest grade pay in PB-1? Surely, acquisition of the requisite skill upon combatisation could not be the justification for the reason consequence of complete combatisation of the force is the placement of the followers in PB-1. To the existing lowest post i.e. that of Constable (Ministerial), placed in PB-1, the lowest grade pay in the pay band was not granted but the grade pay of `2,000/- per month was granted and this benefit has to be granted to the petitioners w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and not w.e.f. 29.10.2006 and in this connection it must be noted that another Central Para Military Force i.e. CISF has accorded said benefit w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

11. The petition is allowed and a mandamus is issued to the respondents to pay grade pay to the petitioners @ `2,000/- per month w.e.f. 1.1.2006. Arrears be paid within a period of 8 weeks from today.

12. No costs.

13. Dasti.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 28, 2011 rk