Delhi High Court
Vikas Chandel vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 February, 2018
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6298/2014
VIKAS CHANDEL ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Dev.P.Bhardwaj, CGSC for UOI
with Ms.Anubha Bhardwaj &
Mr.Surender Kumar, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
ORDER
% 02.02.2018
1. The petitioner is seeking quashing of OM dated 19.07.2013 issued by
the Directorate General, SSB rejecting a representations made by him and
two other personnel regarding the anomalies in the fixation of their pay and
for stepping up of pay.
2. The petitioner was recruited as a Constable in the Medical Cadre of
the respondent No.2/SSB on 06.02.2004 in the pay-scale of `3050-75-3950.
On 01.01.2006, the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission was
accepted by the Central Government and on applying the said
recommendations, all the Constables in the SSB including the petitioner
herein were granted Grade Pay of `2000/- and their pay was fixed at `6060/-
per month. Since the direct recruits, who had joined on or after 01.01.2006,
were given a fixed pay at `6460/- per month, the pay of Constables in
General duty cadre and other cadres/trades, who had joined SSB prior to
01.01.2006, was stepped up to `6460/-. However, the pay of Constables
working in the Medical Cadre was not stepped up for the reason that no
recruitment had taken place in the said post after 01.01.2006.
3. When the petitioner had pointed out the anomalies in his pay fixation
by submitting a representation dated 12.09.2012, the respondent No.2/SSB
had issued OM dated 19.07.2013, stating inter alia that it had forwarded a
proposal to the Ministry of Home Affairs for obtaining a one time relaxation
in the provisions of stepping up of pay for removing the anomalies in the
matter of pay fixation of the Constables in the Medical Cadre but the
Ministry had returned the said proposal on the ground that no recruitment
had taken place to the subject post after 01.01.2016. Hence, the present
petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that aforesaid reasoning given
by the respondents to deny stepping up of the pay-scale to the petitioner is
unjustified as recruitments had been made on the post of Constable in the
Medical Cadre in the year 2007. She further states that the issue raised in the
present petition is no longer res integra inasmuch as a Division Bench of this
Court has already given the same relief to the petitioners in W.P.(C)
No.4368/2017 entitled "Dharambir Singh Vs. Union of India and Others"
vide judgment dated 10.08.2017, where the SSB was a co-respondent.
5. In the captioned case, the respondents had taken a similar stand as
taken in the present case which was turned down. The operative paras of the
said judgment are as follows:-
"5. This contention and stand of the respondents has been
rejected by this Court in several cases. Reference can be made
to the judgment dated 27th January, 2015 in WP(C)
no.727/2015 titled Dasrath & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr.,
judgment dated 18th July, 2016 in WP(C) no.10071/2015 titled
Ram Niwas vs. Union of India & Ors., judgment dated 2nd
March, 2015 in WP(C) 1853/2015 titled Lalit Kumar
Choudhary vs. Union of India & Ors. and judgment dated 4th
November, 2016 in WP(C) No.8058/2015 titled Union of India
& Ors. vs. Malbika Deb Gupta & Ors. These decisions
highlight that there cannot be two different pay scales for the
same posts, one for those who are appointed prior to 1st
January, 2006 or promoted even after 1st January, 2006 and
those who are appointed as direct recruit after 1st January,
2006.
6. In view of the aforesaid position, the writ petition has to be
allowed. Accordingly, mandamus is issued that the petitioner
would be entitled to benefit of the revised pay as applicable to
a direct recruit w.e.f. 1st January, 2006. The arrears of pay
would be paid within a period of 4 months from the date a copy
of this order is received. Non-payment within a period of 4
months would entail payment of interest @ 8% from the date of
this order till payment is made. No costs."(Emphasis added)
6. Mr.Dev.P.Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the respondents submits that
after obtaining legal opinion, the Union of India has filed an SLP
challenging the judgment dated 10.08.2017 passed in the case of Dharambir
Singh (supra), which is likely to be listed before the Supreme Court very
soon.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents did file
an SLP against the judgment dated 04.11.2016 passed in W.P.(C)
No.8058/2015, "Union of India & Ors. Vs. Malbika Deb Gupta & Ors."
which has been rejected by the Supreme Court vide order dated 01.09.2017.
A copy of the said order is handed over by the learned counsel for the
petitioner and is taken on record.
8. In view of the fact that the decision taken in the case of Malbika Deb
Gupta (supra) has attained finality, we have no hesitation in allowing the
present petition on the same lines and on the same terms as recorded in para
No.6 of the judgment dated 10.08.2017 passed in the case of Dharambir
Singh (supra), reproduced herein above.
9. The present petition is allowed and disposed of, leaving the parties to
bear their own costs.
HIMA KOHLI, J.
REKHA PALLI, J.
FEBRUARY 02, 2018
„pg‟
