Delhi High Court
Amar Nath & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 July, 2013
Author: Gita Mittal
$~
20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.4448/2013
% Date of decision: 17th July, 2013
AMAR NATH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through : Dr. Vinod K. Tewari and
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh,
Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)
1. With the consent of both the parties, this writ petition is
taken up for consideration and the matter is being heard finally.
2. The facts giving rise to the petition are within a narrow
compass and are mainly undisputed. To the extent necessary the
same are briefly noted hereinafter.
3. The petitioners joined the Border Roads Organization on
various dates and are holding the posts of Overseer, S/D'Man,
Electrician or Vehicle Mechanic, Welder and Turner. The
petitioners are posted in various projects and they have claimed in
the writ petition that they are entitled to all the rights and privileges
as have been made available to other personnel in the posts, who
WP(C) No.4448/2013 page 1 of 5
are similarly posted as the petitioners.
4. It is undisputed that the petitioners were appointed in
accordance with Recruitment Rules at different points of time. The
writ petition pertains to the subject of pay fixation with effect from
1st January, 1996 and its consequential impact with effect from 1 st
January, 1996 .
5. It is stated that the issue raised for decision in this writ
petition had been finally adjudicated. In this regard our attention is
drawn to the following decisions:-
(i) Decision dated 10th September, 2010
passed by learned Single Judge of Guwahati
High Court in W.P.(C)51/2009 titled as Ghan
Shyam Vishwarkarma v. The Director General,
BRO & Ors.
(ii) Decision mentioned above was upheld by
a Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court
vide its decision dated 18th March, 2011.
(iii) SLP CC 14236/2011 dismissed by the
Hon'ble Supreme court on 1.11.2011.
(iv) Decision dated 6th September, 2012
passed by learned Single Judge of this court in
W.P.(C)5383/2012 titled as Vijay Kumar Singh
& Anr. V. Union of India and Ors.
(v) Order passed by a coordinate bench of
this court in WP(C) 2972/2012 on 30.10.2012,
titled as Penubolu Jagdish and Ors. v. Union of
India and ors.
WP(C) No.4448/2013 page 2 of 5
6. In view of the law laid down and adjudication by the
Guwahati High Court, which had attained finality in W.P.(C)
No.5583/2012, wherein a similar claim was raised on 6th
September, 2012, this court has issued the following directions :-
"3 Suffice would it be to state that when a
principle of law pertaining to payment on
fixation is decided by a Court on a writ petition
filed by an individual but decision relates to a
matter of principle 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.
4 Accordingly we disposed of the writ
petition directed the respondents that whatever
decision would be taken by the respondents
with respect to the decision of the Guahati High
Court pertaining to the writ petition filed by
Ghan Shyam Vishwakarma would be made
applicable to all persons holding posts of
Overseers and Superintendent Gr.II. in BRO".
7. It is therefore trite that when a principle of law pertaining to
payment on pay fixation is decided by a Court in a writ petition
filed by an individual but the decision relates to a matter of
principle of law to be applied, such a decision has to be
implemented with respect to all such persons who hold similar
posts. It is not disputed before us that the above directions squarely
apply to the present case and the petitioners are entitled to the relief
which stands granted in the above judicial precedents.
WP(C) No.4448/2013 page 3 of 5
8. Inasmuch as the petitioners have been compelled to
approach this court and judicial time has been wasted in having to
consider the adjudication of the subject matter, the respondents are
liable to pay costs.
9. It is made clear that in case of failure to follow the law laid
down by the court and if the directions of the court are not strictly
being adhered to, the same would render the respondents liable for
appropriate action under the Contempt of court Act. Further it is
made clear that in case the respondents do not comply with the
directions made by this court vide order dated 6th September, 2012,
we would not hesitate to proceed against them as per law.
10. Having regard to the above, a direction is issued to the
respondent to consider the petitioners' case with respect to all such
persons who hold the similar posts. We reiterate the directions
made by this court specifically directing that the decision taken by
the respondents with respect to the adjudication by the Guwahati
High Court in W.P.(C) No. 51/2009 filed by Ghanshyam(supra)
would be applicable to all persons holding the posts of Overseers
and Superintendent Grade II in BRO.
11. In view thereof, the respondents are additionally directed to
pay the costs which are quantified as follows :-
(i) the respondents shall pay an amount of Rs.500/- to
each petitioner which shall be paid additionally
along with next month's salary and other
allowances.
WP(C) No.4448/2013 page 4 of 5
(ii) The respondent shall deposit an amount of
Rs.15,000/- with the Delhi High Court Mediation
and Conciliation centre within two weeks from
today.
12. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.
(GITA MITTAL)
JUDGE
(DEEPA SHARMA)
JUDGE
JULY 17, 2013
mk
WP(C) No.4448/2013 page 5 of 5
