Delhi High Court
Ramesh Chand Sanwal & Ors. vs Delhi High Court Through ... on 22 January, 2016
$~1.
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 10738/2015
Date of decision: 22nd January, 2016
RAMESH CHAND SANWAL & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate.
versus
DELHI HIGH COURT THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL
..... Respondent
Through Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):
The petitioners, eight in number, are Process Servers working in
the High Court of Delhi. Their service conditions are governed by the
Delhi High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of
Service) Rules, 1972.
2. Having been appointed sometimes in the year 2001 and having
completed more than 10 years of service, they are entitled to financial
upgradation under the Modified Assured Carrier Progression Scheme
(MACPS). To this extent, there is no dispute or lis.
3. The contention of the petitioners is that at present they are in Pay
Band-1/Scale of Rs.5200-20200 and Grade Pay Rs.2800 and are entitled
to financial upgradation in the Grade Pay of Rs.4600.
4. The respondents submit that the petitioners are entitled to financial
upgradation in the next higher Grade Pay of Rs.4200. This is the short
controversy.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon judgment of this
Court in Manoj Kumar and Others versus High Court of Delhi, Writ
Petition (C) No. 6522/2012 decided on 2nd May, 2013 by which Personal
Assistant, Judicial Assistant, Junior Translator and Assistant Librarian,
who were in Pay Band-2, Rs.9300-34800 in Grade Pay of Rs.4200 were
upgraded and granted Grade Pay of Rs.4600. It is accordingly submitted
that the Grade Pay of Rs.4200 does not exist in the hierarchy and,
therefore, the petitioners would be entitled to Grade Pay of Rs.4600 and
not Rs.4200. The next Grade Pay after Rs.2800 in the Delhi High Court
hierarchy is Rs.4600 and not Rs.4200.
6. In order to appreciate the contention, we would like to reproduce
paragraph 2 of the MACP Scheme, which reads as under:-
"2. The MACPS envisages merely placement in
the immediate next higher grade pay in the hierarchy
of the recommended revised pay bands and grade pay
as given in Section 1, Part-A of the first schedule of
the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. Thus, the grade
pay at the time of financial upgradation under the
MACPS can, in certain cases where regular
promotion is not between two successive grades, be
different than what is available at the time of regular
promotion. In such cases, the higher grade pay
attached to the next promotion post in the hierarchy of
the concerned cadre/organisation will be given only at
the time of regular promotion."
The said paragraph adumbrates that MACP Scheme envisages
mere placement in the next higher grade pay in the hierarchy of the
recommended revised pay bands and grade pay as given in Section I,
Part-A of the First Schedule of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. The
contention of the petitioners overlooks the clear words in paragraph 2,
which refers to recommended revised pay band and grade pay as given in
Section I, Part-A of the First Schedule. It is an accepted and admitted
position that as per recommended revised pay band and grade pay in
Section I, Part-A of the First Schedule of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules,
2008 the next Grade Pay is Rs.4200 and not Rs.4600. It need not be the
higher grade pay attached to the next promotion post.
7. Reliance placed on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the
case of Manoj Kumar (supra) is misconceived and inappropriate.
Personal Assistant, Judicial Assistant, Junior Translator and Assistant
Librarian are officers in Pay Band-2, whereas the petitioners herein are in
Pay Band-1. The judgment adjudicates the grade pay payable to the said
officers. This judgment does not obliterate and erase the Grade Pay of
Rs.4200.
8. Similar contention was raised and rejected by the Delhi High Court
in Union of India versus Delhi Nurses Union (Regd.) and Another, 193
(2012) DLT 584 (DB), observing:-
"18. Most importantly, this very issue had come up
for consideration before this Court in the case of R.S.
Sengor v. Union of India, in W.P. (C)
3420/2010 decided on 04.04.2011. In that case the
petitioners were in Pay Band-1 and had a
corresponding grade pay of Rs. 1900/-. The next
hierarchical post was also in Pay Band-1 but had a
grade pay of Rs. 2400/-. The petitioners herein
claimed that since the next hierarchical post had a pay
band of Rs. 2400/-, they should, on financial
upgradation, under the MACPS, be granted the grade
pay of Rs. 2400/-. However, what the respondents in
that case had done was to grant the petitioner therein
the grade pay of Rs. 2000/- which was the next higher
grade pay though, not the grade pay corresponding to
the next hierarchical post. The Division Bench
dismissed the petition of the writ petitioner therein
and held as under:-
"10. The question would be whether the
hierarchy contemplated by the MACPS is in
the immediately next higher Grade Pay or is
it the Grade Pay of the next above Pay Band.
11. Whatever may be the dispute which may
be raised with reference to the language of
paragraph 2 of the MACPS the illustration as
per para 4 of Annexure I to the OM, contents
whereof have been extracted hereinabove,
make it clear that it is the next higher Grade
Pay which has to be given and not the Grade
Pay in the next hierarchical post and thus we
agree with the Respondents that Inspectors
have to be given the Grade Pay after 10 years
in sum of Rs. 4,800/- and not Rs. 5400/-
which is the Grade Pay of the next Pay Band
and relatable to the next hierarchical post. To
put it pithily, the MACPS Scheme requires
the hierarchy of the Grade Pays to be
adhered to and not the Grade Pay in the
hierarchy of posts."
(underlining added)
9. As noted above, the petitioners herein are in Pay Band-1 and not in
Pay Band-2. In order to work out the financial upgradation, we have to
refer to the next grade pay. The next grade pay is Rs.4200 and not
Rs.4600, as is the submission made by the petitioners. The aforesaid
judgment in Delhi Nurses Union (Regd.) and Another (supra) has been
followed in Swaran Pal Singh and Others versus Union of India and
Others, Writ Petition (C) No. 5082/2013 decided on 17th March, 2015.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that Section
1, Part-A of the First Schedule of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008
would not be applicable. We do not find any merit in the said contention.
In order to work out the next higher grade pay, we have to refer to the
grade pay schedule. Learned counsel for the respondent has also stated
that they follow the said schedule as the Delhi High Court does not have
their independent schedule and presently the same schedule is being
followed.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any ground to accept the
prayer of the petitioners.
The writ petition is dismissed.
(SANJIV KHANNA)
JUDGE
(NAJMI WAZIRI)
JUDGE
JANUARY 22, 2016
VKR
