Surat Singh Dahiya And Anr. vs Uoi And Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 2482 Del

$~21 & 22.
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+    W.P.(C) 2771/2016 & W.P.(C) 2774/2016
     SURAT SINGH DAHIYA AND ANR.                   ..... Petitioners
     TRILOK SINGH                                      ..... Petitioner
                      Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate with
                      Mr. Manu Padalia, Advocate

                            versus
       UOI AND ORS                                         .... Respondents
                            Through: Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj with
                            Mr. S.S. Sejwal, Law Officer and Mr. B.K. Rout,
                            Pairvi Officer, CRPF.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
                    ORDER

% 30.03.2016

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 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 30, 2016/sk