Delhi High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Shri Anil Kumar Verma on 27 October, 2014
Author: S.Ravindra Bhat
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on : 27.10.2014
+ W.P.(C) 6137/2013, C.M. NO.13514/2013
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ..... Petitioners
Through: Sh. Vivek Kumar Tandon,
Standing Counsel, GNCTD.
versus
SHRI ANIL KUMAR VERMA ..... Respondent
Through: Respondent in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)
%
1. The Union of India (UOI) claims to be aggrieved by two orders
of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 21.08.2012, in
O.A. No. 3715/2011 (hereafter referred to as the "main order") and the
order in review proceeding - R.A. No. 59/2013 dated 29.04.2013
(hereafter referred to as the "review order"). The issue concerns the
pay fixation of the respondent (hereafter referred to as "the
applicant"), who was initially recruited as Head Constable/AWO in
the Communications Wing of the Delhi Police.
2. The brief facts are that the applicant was appointed as Constable
(Exe) in the pay scale `3050-4590/- on 23.02.1998. He thereafter
W.P.(C) 6137/2013 Page 1
successfully applied and was inducted as a direct recruit Head
Constable/AWO in the pay scale `3200-4900/-. The CCS (Revised
Pay) Rules, 2008 were framed on 29.08.2008; they sought to
effectuate the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission
report. The applicant as on 01.01.2006 was drawing basic salary of `
3795/- per month and in terms of the interpretation of the rules and
prevailing instructions, by applying multiplication factor of 1.86, his
pay was fixed at `7060/- per month in the applicable pay band of
`5200-20200/- with Grade Pay of `2400/-. The applicant represented
for the grant of basic pay scale of `7510/- citing three instances of
post-2007 promotees to the post of Head Constable/AWO. This was
rejected by the GNCTD based upon a Ministry of Home Affairs
(MHA) advice dated 14.09.2010. The essential purport of this
communication of MHA was that stepping-up of pay of existing
employees or seniors cannot be given to direct recruits appointed on or
after 01.01.2006. In the light of the rejection of his representation, the
applicant moved the CAT which allowed his claim. The petitioner's
review application was unsuccessful.
3. Learned counsel contends that the CAT fell into error in
ignoring the MHA's clarification of 14.09.2010. The said clarification
- which deals with stepping-up of pay of seniors, pertinently states as
follows:
"North Block, New Delhi
Dated the 14th September, 2010
W.P.(C) 6137/2013 Page 2
To,
Shri Mangesh Kashyap
DCP, PHQ,
I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
Sub: O.A. No.1150/2010 - Anil Kumar Vs. GNCTD & Others.
Sir,
The undersigned is directed to invite your kind attention to
PHQ letter no.14098/CR-II (PHQ) dated 27.8.2010 and to say that the
parawise comments were referred to D/o Expenditure and they have
advised to consider stepping up of pay of the applicant with reference
to such of their directly recruited juniors who are recruited on or after
1.1.2006 and whose basic pay is more than that of the applicant,
subject to the following conditions:-
Stepping up the basic pay of seniors can be claimed only in the case of
those cadres which have an element of direct recruitment and in cases
where a directly recruited junior is actually drawing more basic pay
than the seniors. In such cases, the basic pay of the seniors will be
stepped up with reference to the basic pay of the directly recruited
junior provided they belong to the same seniority list.
Further, Government servants cannot claim stepping up of their
revised basic pay with reference to entry pay in the revised pay
structure for direct recruits appointed on or after 1.1.2006 as laid
down in Section II of part a of First Schedule to the CCS(RP) Rules,
2008, if their cadre does not have an element of direct recruitment or
in cases where no junior is drawing basic pay higher than them.
2. Parawise comments need to be modified accordingly and may
be sent to this office for further vetting from D/o Expenditure and
extension of time for filing counter reply may also be obtained from
the Hon'ble Tribunal.
Yours faithfully,
W.P.(C) 6137/2013 Page 3
Sd/-
(A.K. Saxena)
Director & CPIO
Telefax:23094387
E-mail: [email protected]"
4. Learned counsel relies upon the order made in the
respondent/applicant's case and submits that the higher pay was drawn
by the other recruits, i.e. Sh. Nawal Kishore and Sh. Pawan Kumar,
having regard to their existing pay scale and the benefits they were
entitled to. It was further submitted that the said promotees opted to
secure their increments in a particular manner, i.e. from the date of
accruing of increments in the normal course which, in turn, meant that
they were entitled to annual increments in the revised pay scale as well
as the higher amount they were entitled to in the promotional grade.
Since the applicant was not entitled to such treatment under the rules,
especially in the light of the MHA advice dated 14.09.2010, he could
not have claimed that benefit. Learned counsel also urged that the
benefit of higher pay made available to the two incumbents, i.e. Sh.
Nawal Kishore and Sh. Pawan Kumar could not have been claimed by
the applicant, since he was part of another cadre.
5. The applicant, who represented himself in the proceedings,
urged that the MHA advice dated 14.09.2010 is irrelevant; and in fact,
a fair reading of that would support the claim for stepping-up. It was
also submitted that the absence of any specific exclusion in the
W.P.(C) 6137/2013 Page 4
recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission with respect
to Delhi Police personnel, either in the Constable's or any other grade,
bifurcating the force into Communications Wing and other Wings,
negatives the Government's contentions.
6. In this case, the respondent-applicant was undeniably recruited
- as a direct recruit - to the post of Head Constable/AWO on
09.11.1998. The pay fixation in respect of Sh. Nawal Kishore and Sh.
Pawan Kumar was pursuant to their promotions as Head
Constable/AWO on 19.02.2007. It is facially evident that the
petitioner was considerably senior to those two officials - having
entered the cadre of Head Constable/AWO as far back as in 1998. The
petitioner's contention that the Communications Wing differs from, or
has to be treated as a separate cadre from other branches of the Delhi
Police, in the light of the order of rejection dated 13.05.2011, is
untenable. The said order itself states that Sh. Nawal Kishore and Sh.
Pawan Kumar were promoted as Head Constable (AWO). The
rejection letter, in fact, does not even refer to the Communication
Wing being different from the general cadre of the Delhi Police.
Furthermore, in our opinion, the applicant's contention that the Sixth
Pay Commission report made no such distinction has considerable
force, in the light of para 7.19.50 of the said report which reads as
follows:
"7.19.50
The Commission has recommended higher pay scale of
Rs.3200-4900 for Constables in CPMFs. A higher scale has
also been recommended for the posts of Head Constable
W.P.(C) 6137/2013 Page 5
and ASI. Complete parity exists at present between CPMFs
and Delhi Police. This parity needs to be maintained. The
Commission, accordingly, recommends the following scales
for Delhi Police:-
Designation Present Recommen Corresponding Pay
Pay ded Pay Band & Grade Pay
Scale Scale
Pay Grade
Band Pay
Constable 3050- 3200-4900 PB-1 2000
Head 3200- 4000-6000 PB-1 2400
Constable 4900
Assistant 4000- 4500-7000 PB-1 2800
Sub 6000
Inspector
Sub 5500- 6500- PB-2 4200
Inspector 9000 10500
Inspector 6500- 7450- PB-2 4600
10500 11500
XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX"
7. As far as the MHA advice dated 14.09.2010 is concerned, we
notice that the Central Government, in a very calculated manner,
denied the claim of stepping-up of direct recruits, post 01.01.2006.
Clearly, the applicant did not fall within that category since he had
been recruited eight years previously. The Court is of the opinion that
the applicant's case was justified and well-founded. Considering the
objectives of the prevailing instructions and the general purport of FR-
W.P.(C) 6137/2013 Page 6
22 as well as FR-22-C, the overall effect of such circular is not to deny
a senior the benefit of stepping-up of pay but rather to grant it, in the
light of the fixation of a junior in the promoted scale. The absence of
such provision or benefit will most likely led to severe discontent in
the concerned service which in the present case is a police force. For
the above reasons, there is no merit in the petition; it is accordingly
dismissed along with the pending application.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
VIPIN SANGHI
(JUDGE)
OCTOBER 27, 2014
'ajk'
W.P.(C) 6137/2013 Page 7
