Delhi High Court
Ved Prakash Gupta vs Uoi & Ors. on 3 January, 2012
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on 03.01.2012
+ W.P.(C) No. 3553/2010
VED PRAKASH GUPTA ... Petitioner
versus
UOI & ORS. ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Arun Bhardwaj with Mr Nitish Sharma
For the Respondent : Mr Baldev Malik with Mr Arjun Malik for R-1 to 3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
BADAR DURREZ AHMED (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.09.2009 in R.A. No.
173/2009 and order dated 13.05.2009 in O.A. No. 593/2007 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as
"the said Tribunal").
2. We have heard this matter at some length and we find that the main point
urged before us is that the petitioner ought to have been given the scale of `. 2000-
3500 with effect from 01.01.1986 pursuant to the revision by the 4th Pay
Commission. It has been contended before us that the petitioner was working as a
Junior Engineer with the Beas Construction Board (B.C.B). Subsequently, the
petitioner as also many others were declared as surplus employees. The petitioner
was, thereafter, redeployed in the C.P.W.D. with effect from 15.04.1985. It has
also been argued that the petitioner, while he served with B.C.B. was drawing a
salary in the pay scale of `.700-1200. The Junior Engineers in C.P.W.D. at that
point of time were drawing salary in the scale of `. 425-700. The plea of the
petitioner is that since the petitioner had opted for the scale of B.C.B. as per the
direction given by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 3009/2004, he
was rightly placed in the scale of `. 700-1200 till 31.12.1985. However, he was
wrongly placed in the pay scale of `. 1400-2300 with effect from 01.01.1986.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the main plea of the petitioner is
that the base scale of `. 700-1200 ought to have been considered in respect of the
period with effect from 01.01.1986. Had that been the case, the petitioner would
have been placed in the revised pay scale of `. 2000-3500. The petitioner, however,
had been placed in the scale of `. 1400-2300 which was the revised scale of `. 425-
700.
3. We find that this plea has been taken by the petitioner in the O.A.
specifically at several points and particularly at paragraph 4.15 as well as in
paragraph 5.17 of the said O.A. However, on going through the impugned
judgment, we find that this aspect of the matter has not been adequately addressed
by the Tribunal and no specific finding has been returned on this plea. It would,
therefore, be appropriate if the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for a
consideration of the issues raised by the petitioner afresh and particularly on the
aspect pointed out by us above.
4. Consequently, we set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter to
the Tribunal for a consideration of the O.A. afresh. Both sides shall be at liberty to
raise all contentions. We also feel that since the petitioner is a senior citizen and
has retired a long time back in the year 2004, it would be appropriate if the
Tribunal disposes of the O.A. within three months. It is understood clearly that
neither party shall take adjournment before the Tribunal. In the first instance, the
parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 18.01.2012.
5. The writ petition stands disposed of.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
V.K. JAIN, J
JANUARY 03, 2012
kb
