Delhi High Court
S.Sampathu & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 15 March, 2016
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2161/2016 & C.M. 9232/2016
S. SAMPATHU & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ankur Chibber, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Bhagwan Swaroop Shukla,
CGSC with Mr. Arun Kumar,
Government Pleader
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
% 15.03.2016
1. The present petition has 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.
2. 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.
3. 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 the counsel for the petitioners
that the petitioners herein are entitled to identical relief as all of them
have completed 24 years of service, from the date of their initial
appointment.
4. 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.
5. Having regard to the fact that as on date, the aforesaid decision will
govern the petitioners in the present case as well, the impugned order
dated 09.02.2016 is quashed and set aside. The present petition is
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.
6. 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.
7. The petition and application are disposed of.
HIMA KOHLI, J
SUNIL GAUR, J
MARCH 15, 2016
r
