K.C. Gupta vs Chief Secretary, Govt. Of N.C.T. ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 11 Del

$~R-1

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                        Date of Decision: January 02, 2013


+                             W.P.(C) 7006/2007

        K.C. GUPTA                                       ..... Petitioner
              Represented by: Mr.Sudhir Sharma, Advocate

                     versus


        CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ANR
                                                       ..... Respondents
            Represented by: Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Advocate


        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
        HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL


PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. We note at the outset that learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from his client gives up the prayer for payment of interest on delayed disbursement of the ad-hoc pension but clarifies that this would not be read to be understood to mean that the petitioner gives up prayer for interest on delayed payments, if the same would be found payable, in terms of the other relief sought in the writ petition.

3. The core issue which needs adjudication finds succinctly penned down by a Division Bench of this Court in its order dated February 06, 2009.

4. Learned counsel for the parties concede that the controversy pin- pointed in the said order notes all facts correctly and rightly brings out the focus point of the controversy.

5. Reflecting upon the order dated February 06, 2009, we find that pursuant to a decision by the Central Administrative Tribunal in TA No.:- T-1236/1985 V.K.Malhotra & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., dated August 28, 1989, the basic pay of the petitioner was fixed at `340/- per month with effect from September 05, 1971 after placing petitioner in the pay-scale `340 - 400. Conceding that the petitioner was placed in the correct pay- scale, issue raised by the petitioner immediately was of the basic pay with effect from September 05, 1971 which was sanctioned to him. Petitioner claimed that in the pay-scale applicable his basic pay as on September 05, 1971 had to be `400/- per month and not `340/- per month.

6. The second issue which the petitioner raised enwombed the replacement pay-scale in which petitioner had to be placed when recommendations of the 3rd Central Pay Commission were implemented with effect from 01.01.1973; the 4th Central Pay Commission recommendations were implemented with effect from 01.01.1986 and the 5th Central Pay Commission recommendations were implemented with effect from 01.01.1996.

7. The petitioner, as recorded in the order dated February 06, 2009 gave up challenge to his basic pay not being sanctioned in sum of `400/- per month and accepted that the same would be `340/- per month. But he brought out that his pay (basic) in sum of `340/- per month was fixed in the pay-scale `340 - 400/- which was a selection scale and therefore prayed that the replacement scales had to be the selection scale.

8. Order dated February 06, 2009 brings out as aforesaid.

9. In other words, the petitioner would be legally justified in seeking his pay to be fixed as per the replacement pay-scales applicable to the selection scale as and when the recommendations of the 3rd, 4th and 5th Central Pay Commission were implemented.

10. Unfortunately for us, responding to the legal issue culled out by this court in the order dated February 06, 2009, while filing an additional affidavit the respondents have simply enclosed a chart pertaining to the pay fixation relating to the petitioner without highlighting for the benefit of this court whether the pay fixed with effect from 01.01.1973 and thereafter was in the applicable selection scale or not.

11. Since learned counsel for the parties do not dispute the factual correctness of the facts noted in the order dated February 06, 2009 and the legal issue which is brought out therein, the writ petition is disposed of issuing a mandamus to the respondents to, within eight weeks from today, fix the petitioner's salary in the replacement pay-scales with reference to the selection scale, if not already done. If it is the case of the respondents that the same has already been done, a detailed order with computations would be passed and communicated to the petitioner. The order in question would highlight the replacement (i) entry scale, (ii) senior scale and (iii) selection scale when the recommendations of the 3rd Central Pay Commission were implemented with effect from 01.01.1973 followed thereafter by the replacement pay-scales with effect from 01.01.1986 and 01.01.1996.

12. If as a result of the revised computations payments become due to the petitioner, the same shall be released to the petitioner within four weeks of the order being passed and the arrears would be paid with simple interest @6% per annum from the date when monthly payments became due and payment is made. Likewise, the petitioner would also be entitled to his pension being fixed accordingly and arrears paid at the same rate of interest. Consequential benefits in terms of gratuity, leave encashment, etc. would follow.

13. No costs.

14. Dasti to the learned counsel for the parties.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(VEENA BIRBAL) JUDGE JANUARY 02, 2013 srb