Delhi High Court
Yogander Singh And Ors vs Uoi And Ors on 1 March, 2016
$~3 & 7.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 954/2016
YOGANDER SINGH AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate with
Mr. Manu Padalia, Advocate
versus
UOI AND ORS .... Respondents
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Rai, Advocate with
Mr. S.S. Sejwal, Law Officer, CRPF.
+ W.P.(C) 1401/2016
RAM SHARAN & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate with
Mr. Manu Padalia, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Umesh Sharma, CGSC with
Mr. Atul Pandey, Advocate and Mr. S.S. Sejwal,
Law Officer, CRPF.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
% 01.03.2016
1. With the consent of the parties, both the petitions are taken up
together and a common order is being passed as follows.
2. The present petitions have been filed by the petitioners, who are
working in the CRPF, praying inter alia for issuing directions to the
respondents to grant them the benefit under the ACP Scheme, on completion
of 24 years of regular service.
3. Mr. Chhibber, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the issue
raised in the present petitions stands settled vide judgment dated 05.03.2015
passed by the Division Bench in a batch of writ petitions, lead matter
registered as W.P.(C) 388/2015 entitled Om Prakash and Ors. Vs. UOI and
Ors., whereunder directions were issued to the respondents to grant the
petitioners therein the second ACP benefits with effect from the date, they
had completed 24 years of service, reckoned from the date of their initial
appointment, subject to their being found fit for promotion and subject to
other eligibility conditions.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that after the judgment
dated 05.03.2015 was pronounced, the respondents had filed review
petitions seeking review of the said decision, which were dismissed by a
common order dated 29.01.2016, by holding that re-mustering of the
petitioners therein to the rank of Naik RO had to be ignored for grant of
ACP. It is stated by counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners herein are
entitled to the identical relief as all of them have completed 24 years of
service, from the date of their initial appointment.
5. That the legal position stands settled vide judgment dated 05.03.2015
in the captioned cases, is not disputed by the respondents though learned
counsels for the respondents add that they are contemplating filing SLPs
against the said judgment.
6. Having regard to the fact that as on date, the aforesaid decision will
govern the petitioners in the present cases as well, the impugned order dated
09.02.2016 passed in W.P.(C)1401/2016 is quashed and set aside. The
present petitions are disposed of on the same lines as the captioned petitions
with directions issued to the respondents to grant second ACP benefits to the
petitioners with effect from the date they had completed 24 years of service,
reckoned from the date of their initial appointments. Further, while
considering the cases of the petitioners, the respondents are directed to
ignore re-mustering of the petitioners to the rank of Naik RO, for grant of
ACP.
7. The respondents are directed to take a decision and convey the same
to the petitioners within ten weeks from today. If the petitioners are found
eligible for being promoted and resultantly, entitled to grant of the second
ACP benefits, the same shall be extended to them within the same timeline
and the arrears would be paid within six weeks from the date of the decision.
In case the arrears are not paid within the stipulated timeline, then the same
shall carry simple interest @ 8% per annum.
8. The petitions are disposed of.
HIMA KOHLI, J
SUNIL GAUR, J
MARCH 01, 2016
rkb
