Delhi High Court
Vijesh Kumar M And Ors vs Union Of India & Anr. on 29 July, 2020
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 29th July, 2020
+ W.P. (C) 4679/2020
VIJESH KUMAR M AND ORS. ..... PETITIONERS
Through: Mr.Amrendra Mehta, Ms. Pallavi
Daem and Ms. Gunjan Kumari,
Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... RESPONDENTS
Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with
Mr.Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar,
CGSC and Mr.Varun Kishore,
Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
C.M. Appl. Nos.16836/2020 & 16837/2020 (for exemption from
filing certified copies of annexures P-1 to P-7 and from filing
duly affirmed affidavit(s) and to pay the court fees/deficit court
fee)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per the extant
rules.
2. The applications are disposed of.
W.P. (C) 4679/2020 Page 1 of 3
W.P. (C) 4679/2020
3. The 234 petitioners, being Head Constables [Driver/Driver-
cum-Pump Operator (DCPO)] in the respondents Central Industrial
Security Force (CISF), have filed this petition seeking fixation of
their basic pay at Rs.7,510/- instead of Rs.6,750/-, i.e., basic pay
equivalent to other similarly placed Head Constables in the
respondents CISF; direction for payment of arrears of pay w.e.f. 1st
January, 2006 is also sought.
4. It is not necessary for us to record the facts, it being the case
of the petitioners that they are fully covered by the judgment dated
30th November, 2018 of this Court in W.P.(C)10660/2016 titled
Vinoj V.V. and Ors. V. Union of India & Ors. and petitioners
wherein were also Head Constables (Driver/DCPO) in the
respondents CISF and vide the said judgment, have been directed
to be paid basic pay of Rs.7,510/-, at par with other Head
Constables, w.e.f. 1st January, 2006, with arrears being paid within
eight weeks therefrom.
5. The counsel for the respondents CISF appearing on advance
notice has fairly stated that, as per the pleas of the petitioners, the
petitioners indeed are covered by the judgment in Vinoj V.V.
supra. The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) also appearing for
the respondents states that the benefit of the said judgment shall be
given to the petitioners, if found entitled thereto. However one
week's time to obtain instructions is sought.
W.P. (C) 4679/2020 Page 2 of 3
6. We are of the view that once the petition has been filed
claiming to be covered by Vinoj V.V. supra, there is no need to
keep the same pending. If any of the petitioners are not covered by
the said judgment, the said petitioner/petitioners can be informed of
the same by giving reasons in writing.
7. We therefore dispose of this petition by directing the
respondents CISF to, within four weeks, examine the case of each
of the 234 petitioners and if the petitioners or any of them are
found entitled to the relief as granted to the petitioners in Vinoj
V.V. supra, to grant the same relief to the petitioners/such of the
petitioners, as granted in Vinoj V.V. (supra) and to release the
arrears due within a further period of four weeks therefrom. If the
petitioners or any of the petitioners are not found to be covered by
Vinoj V.V. (supra), the respondents CISF to, within four weeks
aforesaid, inform the petitioners or such of the petitioners, who,
according to the respondents CISF, are not covered by the
judgment, of the same, in writing, giving reasons.
8. The petition is disposed of.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
ASHA MENON, J.
JULY 29, 2020
s
