Delhi High Court
Harendra Pratap Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 August, 2022
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 31.08.2022
+ W.P.(C) 5458/2019
HARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Ms. Jasvinder Kaur, Advocate (through VC)
For the Respondent: Mr. Ghanshyam Mishra, Central Govt. Counsel with Mr.
Reham Khan, Ms. Priyank Verma, Ms. S. Mishra and Ms.
Vinita Sharma, Advocates.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 07.01.2019 whereby the
Original Application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed
holding that the post of Assistant Editor and Hindi Officer were
dissimilar posts and as such the grade pay of the Assistant Editor's
post could not be stepped up to be equivalent to that of the post of
Hindi Officer.
2. Petitioner was appointed to the post of Hindi Assistant Editor in
the year 1999. Post the recommendations of the Sixth Pay
Signature Not Verified
Digital Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:03.09.2022 12:34:59
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
Commission, Office Memorandum dated 24.11.2008 was issued
which revised the pay scale of official language posts in various
subordinates offices of the Central Government.
3. The pay scales of Hindi Translator/Hindi Officer as well as the
Assistant Editor were also revised.
4. As per the petitioner, a disparity occurred in the said revision
whereby the post of Senior Hindi Translator and Assistant Editor were
placed in the same Grade Pay of ₹ 4600 (Pay Band-2) and the post of
Hindi Officer was placed in the Grade Pay of ₹ 5400 (Pay Band-3)
which was also the Grade Pay/Pay Band of Assistant Director.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on petitioner's
raising a grievance, pursuant to a direction by the Court, an Anomaly
Committee was constituted and in 2013 there was a cadre restructuring
whereby the post of Assistant Editor has been placed in the same
Grade Pay/Pay Band as that of Assistant Director and Hindi Officer.
However, the same has been done prospectively from 2013.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the
anomaly was created with effect from 2006 by the Office
Memorandum dated 24.11.2008, the anomaly should have been
removed retrospectively from 2006 from the date the said
memorandum was made effective.
7. This is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent who
submits that there was no anomaly and a cadre restructuring has taken
Signature Not Verified
Digital Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:03.09.2022 12:34:59
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
place which has placed the post of Assistant Editor in the same Grade
Pay/Pay Band as that Assistant Director and Hindi Officer post 2013.
He submits that the post of Hindi Officer and Assistant Editor are
dissimilar posts and as such there were no similarities and thus there
was no anomaly. He further submits that in any event the grievance
of the petitioner has been redressed since the petitioner has been
placed in the Grade Pay/Pay Band of Assistant Director.
8. The comparison of recruitment rules for the post of Assistant
Editor as well as for the post of Hindi Officer as obtaining in the year
2006 show that the scale of pay of Hindi Officer as well as Assistant
Editor was same.
9. For promotion to the post of Hindi Officer, the recruitment rules
stipulated 'promotion from amongst Senior Hindi Translators with
three years of regular service'. However, for the post of Assistant
Editor, the recruitment rules stipulated 'promotion from amongst
Hindi Translators with five year service in the grade rendered after
appointment thereon on a regular basis'.
10. The difference in promotional rules noticed herein above is the
only aspect which the Tribunal has relied upon to hold that the two
posts were dissimilar.
11. It may be noticed that though the pay scales of Hindi Officer
and Assistant Editor were same prior to the Office Memorandum
dated 24.11.2008. The Office Memorandum places the post of Hindi
Officer in the Grade Pay (Pay Band-3) which is the same as that of the
Signature Not Verified
Digital Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:03.09.2022 12:34:59
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
Assistant Director. The Post of Assistant Editor has been was placed
in the same Grade Pay (Pay Band-2) which is the same as that of
Senior Translator.
12. Clearly an anomaly was created in the pay fixation for the
reason that post of Senior Translator was the feeder post for the post
of Assistant Editor. By the Office Memorandum dated 24.11.2008
(applicable retrospectively from 2006) both the feeder posts as well as
the promotional posts were granted the same Grade Pay of ₹ 4600
(Pay Band - 2).
13. This would militate against the very service jurisprudence that a
feeder post as well as the promotional post carries the same Grade
Pay. It is not the case of the Respondents that the Recruitment Rules
have also been changed with regard to the service requirement for
promotion to the post of Hindi Officer and Assistant Editor. This
implies that a Senior Hindi Translator requires only 3 years of regular
service for consideration to for the post of Hindi Officer, which draws
a higher Grade Pay, but requires 5 years of service for consideration
for the post of Assistant Editor which draws a lower Grade Pay.
14. No doubt, the anomaly has been removed by a cadre
restructuring in 2013 and the post of Assistant Editor has been brought
in the same Grade Pay as that of Assistant Director and Hindi Officer,
however this contradicts the very reasoning of the Tribunal that the
posts are dissimilar for the reason that after a cadre restructuring in
Signature Not Verified
Digital Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:03.09.2022 12:34:59
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
2013 both the posts of Assistant Editor and Hindi Officer have been
placed in the same Grade Pay/Pay Band.
15. In view of the above, we find that the Tribunal has clearly erred
in rejecting the Original Application and holding that the petitioner is
not entitled to the higher Grade Pay with effect from the date when the
anomaly was created by the Office Memorandum dated 24.11.2008.
16. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set
aside and it is directed that the Post of Assistant Editor shall be placed
in the Grade Pay of ₹ 5400 (Pay Band-3) with effect from date, the
post of Hindi Officer was placed in the Grade Pay of ₹ 5400 (Pay
Band-3) by the Office Memorandum dated 24.11.2008. Petitioner
shall be paid the arrears of his salary within 6 weeks.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
AUGUST 31, 2022
rs
Signature Not Verified
Digital Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:03.09.2022 12:34:59
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
