Delhi High Court
Bhuwan Chandra vs Union Of India & Ors. on 13 July, 2016
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Delivered on: July 13, 2016
+ W.P.(C) 10756/2015
BHUWAN CHANDRA ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Satyam Pandey, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Prasanta Varma, Advocate
with Mr.G.L.Bhatia, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Except for the date when the petitioner was promoted to the post of
Overseer, which petitioner claims to be February 12, 1990 and the
respondents claim it to be June 12, 1990, parties are not at variance on any
other fact.
3. Annexure R-2 filed with the writ petition supports the stand of the
respondent that petitioner's promotion was on June 12, 1990 and thus the
decision is premised on the fact that the petitioner was promoted as a
Overseer on June 12, 1990.
4. But as we note hereinafter, this controversy is irrelevant.
5. Undisputed position is that in a writ petition filed by one Ghanshyam
Vishwakarma (Overseer) being WP(C) 51/2009, the Gauhati High Court
directed, that irrespective of the mode of recruitment i.e. by direct
recruitment or promotion, Overseers working with BRO would be granted
benefit of pay scale of `5000-8000 (pre-revised) as recommended by the
Pay Commission with effect from January 01, 1996 with actual benefits
being restricted from January 01, 2006.
6. This would mean that as regards the petitioner, being an Overseer as
on January 01, 1996, appointed thereto by way of promotion with effect
from June 12, 1990, he would be entitled to the same benefit as was
accorded to Ghanshyam Vishwakarma by the Gauhati High Court, which
decision has been upheld by the Supreme Court and implemented qua
Ghanshyam Vishwakarma.
7. If this be so we see, no reason why the petitioner be not entitled to a
relief declaring that even petitioner would get the same benefit as
Ghanshyam Vishwakarma got i.e. benefit of pre-revised pay scale `5000-
8000 and thereafter the pay scale as per the recommendations of the Pay
Commission introduced with effect from January 01, 1996 with actual
benefits accruing with effect from January 01, 2006.
8. The petitioner thereafter was promoted as NT Supervisor, Grade-II.
9. With respect to pay in said, there is an issue of fact which arises. As
per the respondents the post in question was in another stream and the
petitioner opted for the same.
10. In the writ petition the petitioner is seeking the benefit of pre-revised
pay scale `5000-8000 as Overseer and appropriate pay scale for the post of
NT Supervisor.
11. We therefore clarify that we are not expressing any opinion as to
what pay scale should the petitioner be placed in with effect from October
09, 2012 when he earned promotion as NT Supervisor, Grade-II. But being
placed in the applicable pay scale in the post of Overseer in terms of the
decision in Ghanshyam Vishwakarma's case with actual benefits being
restricted from January 01, 2006, petitioner's last pay drawn when he earned
promotion to NT Supervisor, Grade-II would require to be protected and
thus we so direct.
12. The petition is accordingly disposed of declaring that working as a
Overseer with effect from January 01, 1996 petitioner be extended the
same benefit which was granted to Ghanshyam Vishwakarma with effect
from January 01, 1996 but difference in pay be paid with effect from
January 01, 2006 as directed by Gauhati High Court. Further, as NT
Supervisor, Grade-II, benefit of pay protection be accorded to the petitioner.
13. Arrears shall be calculated and paid within 12 weeks from today and
if not paid within 12 weeks shall be payable with simple interest @ 8% per
annum reckoned from 12 weeks from today.
14. No costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
JULY 13, 2016
'skb'
