Delhi High Court
Sudhir Kumar Kapoor vs Uoi And Ors on 4 October, 2013
Author: Gita Mittal
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6297/2013
% Date of decision: 4th October, 2013
SUDHIR KUMAR KAPOOR ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv.
versus
UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Ms. Archana Gaur, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)
1. Admit.
Ms. Archana Gaur, Advocate accepts notice of admission on
behalf of respondents.
2. The issue raised in the present writ petition has arisen in
several petitions already decided. With the consent of parties, the writ
petition is taken up for consideration and disposal.
3. The petitioner in the instant writ petition is a promotee officer
working as Superintendent BR Grade II with the Border Road
Organization. This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying to
pay salary in the same pay scale/pay band with grade pay as was paid
to Ghan Shyam Vishwakarma pursuant to the decision passed by the
Gauhati High Court (Aizawl Bench) in W.P.(C)No.51/2009.
4. The Border Road Organization implemented the
WP(C) No.6297/2013 page 1 of 3
recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission with effect from
January 1, 1996 and started paying a higher salary to Overseers and
Superintendents BR Grade-II who were direct recruits and possessed
either a diploma or a degree in the applicable field i.e. Electrical or
Mechanical; depending upon the stream. This was denied to promotee
officers who joined as Masons, Carpenters etc. and earned promotion.
The reason for denying the parity in pay-scale was by drawing a
distinction between Officers holding a diploma or a degree and those
not holding a diploma or a degree. This action was held to be
discriminatory and was quashed. Mandamus was issued that same
scale of pay benefit, as recommended by the Pay Commissions, be
accorded to such officers for the reason that the Pay Commissions did
not draw any such distinction while making their recommendations.
5. The decision of the Aizawl Bench of the Gauhati High Court
was unsuccessfully challenged before the Supreme Court. Qua Ghan
Shyam Vishwakarma, the same has been implemented as also many
more who filed similar petitions.
6. Despite repeated directions, the respondents are granting
benefits only to such persons who approached the court which is
legally impermissible.
7. In view of the above, writ petitions have been filed by several
other persons claiming the same benefits as have been granted by the
Aizawl Bench of the Gauhati High Court aforenoticed. The decision
in the instant case relates to application of policy decision. This court
in several orders including the order dated 17th December, 2012
passed in WP(C)No.5040/2012, Prabhdial Singh & Ors. v. Union of
WP(C) No.6297/2013 page 2 of 3
India & Ors. has specifically directed that the decision has to be
implemented in rem. No action has been taken by the respondents
and persons as the petitioners are being compelled to approach this
court for the same relief.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record also the
order dated 31st July, 2013 passed in WP(C)No.3820/2013, Narendra
Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. passed by us in the above
circumstances.
9. We accordingly allow this writ petition directing that the
petitioner working as Superintendent BR Grade II with the Border
Road Organization be accorded the benefit of recommendations made
by the 5th and 6th Central Pay Commissions as was accorded to Ghan
Shyam Vishwakarma.
10. Arrears, if any, would be disbursed within a period of 12
weeks from today.
11. The petitioner shall be entitled to costs which are quantified at
Rs.10,000/-.
(GITA MITTAL)
JUDGE
(DEEPA SHARMA)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 04, 2013
mk
WP(C) No.6297/2013 page 3 of 3
