Delhi High Court
Anil Prasad vs Union Of India And Ors. on 5 October, 2021
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 05.10.2021
+ W.P.(C) 2135/2020
ANIL PRASAD ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Rakesh Kumar, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner contending that the
respondents have wrongly fixed his basic pay at the rate of ₹19,680
with grade pay of ₹5,400 instead of ₹28,340 with grade pay of ₹6,600,
thereby wrongly implementing Paragraph 8 of the Central Civil
Services (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed Pensioners) Order, 1986
(hereinafter referred to as the „CCS Order‟).
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
was a Major in the Indian Army and was discharged from the services
on 15.07.2007. He was appointed as an Assistant Commandant
(Medical Officer) in the Central Reserve Police Force, in the pay scale
of ₹15,600 - ₹39,100 with grade pay of ₹5,400 vide appointment letter
Signature Not Verified
SHALOO BATRA
dated 30.06.2006. The petitioner claims that as on the date of his
discharge from the Indian Army he was drawing pay of ₹28,340 with
grade pay of ₹6,600, the same was entitled to be protected in terms of
Rule 8 of the CCS Order.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the
judgment dated 18.03.2013, passed by the Division Bench of this
Court in a batch of petitions including WP(C) 2331 of 2012, titled
Govt. of India & Ors. v. Capt. (Retd.) Kapil Chaudhary, to contend
that this Court, interpreting Paragraph 8 of the CCS Order, has held
that a retired Armed Force personnel upon re-appointment in
government service would be entitled to his basic pay being fixed at
par with his last drawn pay.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the pay of the petitioner has been rightly fixed as ₹19,680
with grade pay of ₹5,400. He submits 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 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 Army.
5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties.
6. In Capt. (Retd.) Kapil Chaudhary (supra), a Division Bench of
Signature Not Verified
SHALOO BATRA
this Court, interpreting paragraph 8 of the CCS Order, has held as
under:
"9. It would be nobody's case that upon re-
employment a person would be entitled to a
basic pay exceeding the last drawn basic pay.
Such a claim would obviously be not even
acceptable from a common sense point of view.
But a claim to the last drawn basic pay being
retained would obviously be a logical
argument.
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.
11. To this extent the view taken by the
Tribunal as per the impugned order dated July
27, 2011 is correct warranting W.P.(C)
No.2331/2012 filed by the Union of India to be
dismissed. "
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.
9. Accordingly, the Order dated 15.05.2017 fixing the basic pay of
the petitioner, as also the Order dated 24.04.2019 rejecting the
representation of the petitioner, are quashed. The respondents shall re-
Signature Not Verified
SHALOO BATRA
work the pay fixation of the petitioner in accordance with the
judgment of this Court within a period of eight weeks.
10. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the
order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e- mail.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
MANMOHAN, J
OCTOBER 05, 2021
RN/P
Signature Not Verified
SHALOO BATRA
