Delhi High Court
N.C.Mahajan & Ors. vs Union Of India & Anr. on 2 February, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C) No.5895/2007
% 02nd February 2017
N.C.MAHAJAN & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. A.K.Verma, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Roshan Lal Goel and Mr.
R.M.Tripathi, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Shreyans Singhvi, Ms. Ekta
Mehta and Mr. Sumer Sadhu,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M. No. 9220/2015 (u/O 6 R 17 CPC by the petitioner)
There is no opposition to this application for amendment which is
allowed inasmuch as petitioners only seek to add certain facts and
documents for claiming the same reliefs as were claimed in the amended
writ petition. The application is therefore allowed.
CM stands disposed of.
W.P. (C) No.5895/2007
Learned senior counsel for respondents states that no fresh pleadings
are required and the respondents adopt their existing pleadings to the
amended writ petition.
W.P.(C) No. 5895/2007
1. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner for quite some time.
The amount of time which is taken for hearing by the counsel for the
petitioner is in view of the ambiguous nature of the prayer clauses of the
amended writ petition. The relief/prayer clauses of the amended writ
petition read as under:-
PRAYER
"It is most respectfully, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be
pleased to:-
(i) Direct the respondents to implement the recommendations of the Fourth Central
Pay Commission, D.P. Chattopadhyaya Committee's Report and Fifth Central
Pay Commission. It is further prayed to direct the respondents to implement the
recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission and recommendations
made by D.P .Chattopadhyaya Committee with effect from 01-01-1986;
(ii) Direct the respondents to implement the recommendations of the Fifth Central
Pay Commission and;
(iii) Direct the respondents to revise the pay scales in accordance with the
Chattopadhyaya Committee's Report with effect from 01-01-1986 and
consequently to pay the arrears of salaries to the petitioners with effect from 01-
01-1986;
(iv) Fill up the post of Chief Librarian and other posts, which are lying vacant
without any delay to boost the staff under the guidance of the qualified and job
oriented Librarian."
2. I have put it to counsel for the petitioner that if the
understanding of the Court is correct that petitioners want implementation
W.P. (C) No.5895/2007
of the D.P. Chattopadhyaya Committee's Report, and consequently,
amendment of the pay-scales as granted in the 4th Central Pay Commission
Report and 5th Central Pay Commission Report. Counsel for the petitioner
agrees that petitioners want amendments to the 4th Central Pay Commission
Report and 5th Central Pay Commission Report and which would be granted
on the petitioners prayer being granted that the 4th and 5th Central Pay
Commissions Reports should be amended as per the recommendations of
the D.P. Chattopadhyaya Committee's Report.
3. Counsel for the petitioners argues that D.P. Chattopadhyaya
Committee's Report if implemented, will result in putting respondent no.2/
Nehru Memorial Museum and Library/employer in a higher category library
and once the respondent no.2 is put in a higher category library of category-
5, then, the Central Pay Commissions Reports will have to be amended so as
to entitle the petitioners to claim higher pay-scales of respondent no.2 being
in a higher category-5 library.
4. Learned senior counsel for the respondent no.2 states that to all
the employees of the respondent no.2 pay-scales are being given by
implementing the recommendations of the 4th Central Pay Commission
Report, 5th Central Pay Commission Report as also the 6th Central Pay
W.P. (C) No.5895/2007
Commission Report as applicable to autonomous organization as such is the
respondent no.2. Therefore, really so far as respondent no.2 is concerned, it
has already adopted and paid to its employees necessary payments as per the
4th Central Pay Commission Report, 5th Central Pay Commission Report and
6th Central Pay Commission Report as applicable to autonomous
organization, as such the respondent no.2.
5. Counsel for the petitioner concedes that 4th Central Pay
Commission Report came in 1986 and the 5th Central Pay Commission
Report came in 1997. This writ petition is filed much later in the year 2007.
Therefore, by a writ filed in the year 2007, 4 th Central Pay Commission
Report which came into effect about 20 years earlier in 1986 is prayed for
being amended, as also the 5th Central Pay Commission Report which came
in 1997 is prayed for being amended around after 10 years of its
implementation. Also, This Court has to observe that Central Pay
Commissions Reports are prepared after hundreds and hundreds of men
hours put by different committees and different personnel who are experts in
their fields. Central Pay Commission Reports are therefore not interfered
with by the Courts which do not have expertise to substitute their views for
that of the experts to prepare the Central Pay Commissions Reports.
W.P. (C) No.5895/2007
6. In view of the above facts, since not only the writ petition is
grossly barred by time, and to which petition principles of Limitation Act
apply in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of
Orissa and Another Vs. Mamta Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436, and also that
the facts show that this Court cannot and does not substitute its own view
for a particular pay-scale to be granted to an employee of an autonomous
organization more so by amending Central Pay Commission Reports, this
writ petition is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own
costs.
FEBRUARY 02 ,2017 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
ib
W.P. (C) No.5895/2007
