Delhi High Court
Krishan Kant Yadav & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 10 August, 2017
27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) 94/2017 & CM 15104/2017
Date of decision: 10th August, 2017
KRISHAN KANT YADAV & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.P.Sureshan, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (Oral)
Krishan Kant Yadav, Satish Chandra and Murari Lal Jaiswal
have filed the present writ petition for issue of writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents to fix the basic pay in PB-1 at
Rs.6460/- with grade pay of Rs.2,000/- w.e.f. 1st January, 2006.
They have also prayed for setting aside of order dated 30 th
November, 2016 passed by the respondents whereby their request
for payment of basic pay in PB-1 at Rs.6460/- with grade pay of
Rs.2,000/- has been rejected. Another prayer made in the writ
petition is for payment of arrears along with interest @18% p.a.
2. The petitioners herein were appointed as Constables (GD) on
25th/27th August, 2001 in the Central Industrial Security Force.
WP(C) 94/2017 Page 1
Their pay under Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Revised Rules'), was fixed in PB-1
by applying multiplier of 1.86 to the existing basic pay and
rounding of the resultant figure to the next multiplier of 10.
3. However, on implementation of the Revised Pay Rules an
anomaly was noticed, as the basic pay of a direct recruit appointed
to the post of Constable (GD) on or after 1st January, 2006 was
higher than the pay fixed by applying the aforesaid multiplier of
1.86 to the existing basic pay rounded to the next multiplier of 10.
This anomaly is accepted and admitted by the respondents. The
respondents however, claim that the petitioners would be entitled to
stepping up of pay only from the date and on or after a direct recruit
is appointed to the post of Constable (GD) and not for the period
prior to the said appointment.
4. The stand of the respondents is that the petitioners who are
drawing less basic pay than a new direct recruit would be entitled to
stepping up only from the date when their junior direct recruit is
actually appointed. Stepping up of pay cannot be granted for the
period prior to appointment of such direct recruit junior.
5. The aforesaid contention of the respondents has been
considered by this Court and rejected in judgment dated 27th
January, 2015 in Writ Petition (C) No. 727/2015 titled Dasrath &
Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr.; judgment dated 18th July, 2016 in
Writ Petition (C) No. 10071/2015 titled Ram Niwas vs. Union of
India & Ors.; judgment dated 2nd March, 2015 in Writ Petition (C)
WP(C) 94/2017 Page 2
No. 1853/2015 titled Lalit Kumar Chaudhary vs. Union of India
& Ors; and judgment dated 4th November, 2016 in Writ Petition (C)
No. 8058/2015 titled Union of India & Ors. vs. Malbika Deb
Gupta & Ors.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the
present case, the petitioners had earlier filed writ petition being
WP(C) No.5975/2016 titled Krishan Kant Yadav & Ors. vs. Union
of India & Ors., which was disposed of vide order dated 15th July,
2016 making reference to an earlier decision dated 17 th March,
2015 in WP(C) No.5082/2013 titled Swaran Pal Singh & Ors. vs.
UOI & Ors.
7. Our attention has been drawn to Swaran Pal Singh (supra)
wherein distinction was made between direct recruits and
promotees for fixation of pay in the Revised Pay Rules. It was
observed that pay structure under Section II of Part-A of the First
Schedule to the Revised Rules cannot be invoked by an employee
other than those who are appointed afresh by way of direct
recruitment on or after 1st January, 2006.
8. Our attention has been drawn to clause (ii) to Rule 7-A to
argue that it makes reference to minimum of the revised pay
band/pay scale, and states that if minimum of the revised pay
scale/pay band is more than the amount arrived at by multiplying
the same with 1.86 rounded to the next multiplier of 10, the pay will
be fixed at the minimum of revised pay scale/pay band. The
respondent's submit that clause (ii) to Rule 7 (A) makes reference
WP(C) 94/2017 Page 3
to minimum of revised pay scale/pay band and does not refer to
Section II of Part A of the First schedule to the Revised Rules,
2008.
9. We have considered the contention raised by the respondents
but do not find any reason to deviate and not follow the aforesaid
decisions. Decision in case of Swaran Pal Singh (supra) was
dealing with financial up gradation under Modified Assured Career
Progression Scheme (MACPS). The issue, therefore, was answered
with reference to the table in Section I of Part A of the First
Schedule to the Revised Rules, 2008. In several decisions of this
Court, it has been held that financial up gradation is to be granted
not with reference to the promotional pay scale but with reference
to Section 1 Part A of the First Schedule. It is in this context that
the aforesaid observations have been made in Swaran Pal Singh
(supra).
10. It is noticeable that the judgment in Swaran Pal Singh (supra)
is authored by the same Judge who had subsequently authored
pronouncements in Ram Niwas, Lalit Kumar Choudhary and
Dasrath. In fact, the case set up by the respondents accepts and
implies that the same post would have two different pay scales; one
for those who are appointed to the post before 1 st January, 2006 and
those promoted at any time before appointment of a direct recruit,
and direct recruits appointed after 1st January, 2006. This anomaly
cannot be permitted and should not be permitted. The impact of the
judgments is that the promotee and direct recruit appointed earlier
WP(C) 94/2017 Page 4
and senior are treated at par with direct recruits appointed after 1 st
January, 2006.
11. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that the
petitioners in fact would be prejudiced and get lower pay scale as
they were entitled to first increment w.e.f. 1st July, 2006. The said
argument by the respondents would not matter and is
inconsequential. Once the pay scale of the petitioners is fixed as
Rs.6460/- plus grade pay of Rs.2,000/- w.e.f. 1st January, 2006,
their increment w.e.f. 1st July, 2006 will be counted and calculated
on the basis of the said basic pay and not on the basis of the pay
which has been paid to them i.e. Rs.6240/- plus grade pay of
Rs.2,000/-.
12. In view of the aforesaid, we allow the present petition and
direct the respondents to fix the pay scale of the petitioners at
Rs.6460 plus grade pay of Rs.2,000/- w.e.f. 1st January, 2006.
13. The respondents will comply with the aforesaid directions
within four weeks from the date copy of this order is received. If
the arrears not paid within four weeks, the respondents shall pay
interest @8% from the date of this order. There would be no order
as to costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
AUGUST 10, 2017
RN
WP(C) 94/2017 Page 5
