Rameshchandra Prabhudas Patel vs Uoi & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 7153 Del

$~5
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                   Date of Decision: December 13, 2012

+                         WP(C) 7749/2012

       RAMESHCHANDRA PRABHUDAS PATEL            ..... Petitioner
              Represented by: Mr.Amit Kumar, Advocate.

                                   versus

       UOI & ORS.                                 ..... Respondents
                 Represented by: Mr.B.V.Niren and Mr.Prasouk Jain,
                 Advocates.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. It is not in dispute that on the subject of pay fixation with effect from 01.01.1996 and its consequential impact with effect from 01.01.2006, issue pertaining to Overseers and Superintendent Gr.II in BRO stands conclusively adjudicated by a decision dated September 10, 2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court allowing WP(C) No.51/2009 Ghan Shyam Vishwakarma Vs. The Director General, BRO & Ors. which decision was upheld by a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court as per its decision dated March, 18, 2011. The Supreme Court has refused to grant special leave to appeal.

3. The decision holds that in fixing wages of Overseers or Superintendent Gr.II, no distinction can be made between those who join as direct recruits having a diploma/degree in the relevant field and those who earn promotions but do not possess a diploma/degree.

4. The respondents were placing those possessing diploma/degree in a higher scale of pay and needless to state they were direct recruits. Promotee officers who had joined in the lower rungs and did not possess the diploma/degree were placed in a lower pay-scale. This was found to be illegal. Mandamus issued was that all officers would be placed in the pay-scale in which the respondents were placing officers possessing diploma/degree.

5. Suffice would it be to state that when a principle of law pertaining to payment on pay fixation is decided by a Court on a writ petition filed by an individual but the decision relates to a matter of principal of law to be applied, the said decision has to be implemented in rem, i.e. with respect to all such persons who hold similar posts and not qua the persons who approach the Court.

6. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents that the benefit of the decision passed by the Gauhati High Court pertaining to the writ petition filed by Ghan Shyam Vishwakarma would be made applicable to not only the instant writ petitioner but all persons holding posts of Overseers and Superintendent Gr.II in BRO.

7. No costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE DECEMBER 13, 2012 dkb