Delhi High Court
Malkhan Singh And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 5 August, 2020
$~VC-13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 05th August, 2020
+ W.P. (C) 4905/2020, C.M. Appln. Nos.17711-17712/2020 (both
for exemption)
MALKHAN SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr.
Anshuman Mehrotra and Mr.
Harsh Dhankar, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Arun Bhardwaj CGSC for UOI,
Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Mr. Nikhil
Bhardwaj, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
%
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
C.M. Appln. Nos.17711/2020 & 17712/2020 (Exemption from
filing the fair typed copies of dim annexures and the documents
and from filing duly affirmed affidavit(s) and court fees)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per the extant
rules.
2. The applications are disposed of.
W.P. (C) 4905/2020
3. The 145 petitioners, being Head Constables (Driver/Driver-
cum-Pump Operators) in the respondents Central Industrial
Security Force (CISF), have preferred this petition impugning the
orders dated 26th May, 2020 and 23rd June, 2020 of rejection of
their representations to the respondents CISF, to grant to them the
same benefit as granted to the petitioners similarly placed as the
petitioners herein vide judgment dated 30th November, 2018 in
W.P.(C) No.10660/2016 titled Vinoj V.V. & Ors. Vs. Union of
India & Anr.
4. The counsel for the respondents CISF appears on advance
notice.
5. In the last few months, several petitions, petitioners wherein
were claiming the same benefit as granted in Vinoj V.V. supra have
been coming before us and we have been disposing of the same by
directing the respondents to grant to the petitioners therein the
same benefits as granted in Vinoj V.V. supra if the petitioners in
each of these petitions were found to be similarly placed as
petitioners in Vinoj V.V. supra and if not, directing the respondents
to give reasons in writing why the petitioner/s was/were not
entitled to the benefit of Vinoj V.V. supra.
6. The aforesaid conduct of the respondents CISF of, in spite of
those claiming to be similarly placed as the petitioners in Vinoj
V.V. supra preferring representations, claiming the same reliefs as
granted in Vinoj V.V. supra, dismissing the said representations,
merely by stating that nobody else other than the petitioners in
Vinoj V.V. supra had been granted the relief, has disturbed us. In
our view, at least personnel of the Armed Forces should not be
compelled to approach the Courts, once the Court has already in a
petition filed by some of them, ordered a particular relief or
directed a particular entitlement.
7. The counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) 1
SCC 347 to contend that in spite of the Supreme Court clearly
spelling out that the benefit has to be granted to all similarly placed
i.e. even to those not petitioners before the Court, the respondents
continue to compel the petitioners, who are posted at far off places,
to approach the Courts, to be entitled to the benefit.
8. The counsel for the respondents CISF has fairly stated that
this should not be the state of affairs.
9. To prevent such status from continuing, we direct the
Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs to bestow attention to the
aforesaid anomaly prevalent and to ensure that the personnel of the
Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) who are entitled to a relief
on the basis of judgments in petitions filed by those similarly
placed, are granted the said relief without each of them, to their
extreme hardship, being required to approach the Courts. The
Director General, CISF is also directed to ensure that in future,
personnel preferring representations for relief in accordance with
the judgments in the case of some of the personnel and having
general application, are not compelled to approach the Courts for
being entitled to the same relief.
10. The orders dated 26th May, 2020 and 23rd June, 2020,
Annexure-P1 to the petition, of rejection of the representations of
the petitioners, merely on the ground of the relief in Vinoj V.V.
supra being not available to any other personnel even if similarly
placed as the petitioners in Vinoj V.V. supra, are accordingly
quashed.
11. The respondents CISF are directed to, within six weeks of
today study the case of each of the petitioners and to, within the
said period of six weeks grant to the petitioners/such of the
petitioners who are found to be similarly placed as the petitioners
in Vinoj V.V. supra, the same relief as granted vide judgment dated
30th November, 2018 in W.P.(C) No.10660/2016 including of
payment of arrears. If the petitioners or any of them are not found
to be similarly placed as the petitioners in Vinoj V.V. supra, the
respondents to, within the said period of six weeks inform to the
petitioners/such of the petitioners who are not found entitled to the
relief, the reasons in writing therefor. We make it clear that if there
is any non-compliance, the respondents, besides being liable for the
costs of litigation which the petitioners have been forced to
undertake, would also be liable for interest at such rate as may be
imposed for delay in payment.
12. The petition is disposed of.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
ASHA MENON, J.
AUGUST 05 , 2020
pkb
