Delhi High Court
Manish Kumar Singh vs Union Of India & Anr on 8 December, 2021
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10902/2019
MANISH KUMAR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Jatin Puniyani, Advocate.
Mr. Akshay Amritanshu,
Advocate with Mr. Kartikey
Singh and Mr. Ashutosh Jain,
Advs.
% Date of Decision: 8th December, 2021
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
MANMOHAN, J. (Oral)
W.P.(C) 10902/2019 & CM APPL. 44035/2021
1. Present application has been filed by the applicant/petitioner
seeking early hearing of the present petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that this Court has
already decided the issues involved in the present writ petition on 5th
October, 2021 in Anil Prasad Versus Union of India & Ors, W.P.(C)
2135/2020 following the decision in the case of Kapil Chaudhary vs.
Govt. of India & Ors, W.P.(C) 6701/2012.
3. Issue notice.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the
present application being allowed.
5. Keeping in view the said fact, present application is allowed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:10.12.2021
11:20:58
and the matter is taken up for hearing with consent of the parties.
W.P.(C) 10902/2019
6. It is pertinent to mention that the present writ petition has been
filed seeking number of prayers. However, learned counsel for the
petitioner states that he wishes to press only prayers 'b' and 'c' of the
present petition seeking a direction to the respondents to fix/re-fix the
pay of the petitioner at Rs.30,310/-, being the last drawn pay by the
petitioner in his previous department i.e. Indian Air Force.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the issue involved
in the present writ petition has already been decided by a Division
Bench of this Court in Capt. (Retd.) Kapil Chaudhar vs. Govt. of
India & Ors, W.P.(C) 6701/2012, wherein it has been held as under:-
"8. Whereas the Union of India would urge that as per para
8, the last sentence, would make it clear that the only
embargo is that the pay so arrived should not exceed the
basic pay drawn while in service in an Armed Force. But, the
argument overlooks the preceding line where the expression
is: 'equal to or higher than the minimum of the scale attached
to the civil post in which they are employed.
..........
10. Meaningfully read, paragraph 8 of the CCS (Fixation of
Pay of re-employed Pensioners) Order 1986 would simply
mean that a retired Armed Force Personnel, upon re-
appointed in Government service, would be entitled to his
basic pay being fixed at par with his last drawn pay."
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents states that the
interpretation put by the Division Bench on para 8 of the CCS order in
its judgment in Capt. (Retd.) Kapil Chaudhary (supra) is erroneous.
He further submits that as the Special Leave Petition, being SLP(C)
20017-20018 of 2015, against the said judgment was dismissed on the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:10.12.2021
11:20:58
ground of delay, the same cannot be treated as a precedent for the
present case. He submits that paragraph 8 of the CCS Order merely
provides that while granting advance increments to the Officer, the
basic pay cannot be fixed higher than what the officer was drawing in
the Indian Air Force.
9. In fact, similar contentions had been raised by the respondents
in the case of Anil Prasad vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra). The said
judgment was authored by one of us (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin
Chawla). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"7. We see no reason to differ from the above interpretation
placed by the predecessor bench of this Court in the
aforesaid judgment.
8. In view thereof, we hold that the petitioner was entitled to
protection of his last drawn Basic pay in the Indian Army,
being ₹28,340. Insofar the grade pay is concerned, the
learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the said
relief."
10. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and the
respondents are directed to re-work the pay fixation of the petitioner in
accordance with the judgment of this Court within a period of eight
weeks. Accordingly, with the aforesaid direction the present writ
petition stands disposed of.
MANMOHAN, J
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
DECEMBER 8, 2021/AS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:10.12.2021
11:20:58
