Delhi High Court
Sh. Om Prakash vs Commissioner Of Police on 24 October, 2024
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar, Sudhir Kumar Jain
$~124
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 15184/2023
SH. OM PRAKASH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Keshav Sehgal, Mr.
Shivam Gaur, Mr. Kshitij Joshi and
Mr. Aryan Kumar, Advs.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Vidhi Gupta, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 24.10.2024
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. OA 1302/2023, preferred by the petitioner before the learned
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench1, stands dismissed
by the impugned order dated 4 May 2023 on the ground of limitation.
2. Mr. Keshav Sehgal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, assails
the impugned order, citing the decision of the Supreme Court in M.R.
Gupta v Union of India.2
3. Ms. Vidhi Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent, seeks to
distinguish the decision in M.R. Gupta on the ground that, in the
"the learned Tribunal", hereinafter
present case, the grievance of the petitioner arose on the basis of an
increment which according to him was not paid to him in time. As
such, she submits that the petitioner ought to have approached the
learned Tribunal within a year thereof, condonable by a maximum
period of six months.
4. We have perused OA 1302/2023 filed by the petitioner before
the learned Tribunal.
5. The petitioner joined the Delhi Police as a Constable on
8 March 1982. He was promoted as Head Constable with effect from
1 August 1995, as Assistant Sub-Inspector in January 2013 and
Sub-Inspector in July 2019, from which post he superannuated on
31 January 2022.
6. The petitioner's case before the learned Tribunal was that the
Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997, entitled the
petitioner to upgradation of his scale of pay, consequent on exercise of
option by the petitioner in terms of Rule 6 of the said Rules. He
contended that it was for the respondent to offer him the opportunity
to exercise the said option and had he exercised the said option, he
would have been entitled to his increment with effect from 1 January
1996, which would result in upward fixation of his pay scale.
Predicated on this premise, the petitioner in his OA prayed as under:
(1995) 5 SCC 628
"...The Applicant prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased
to:
8.1. Call for the relevant file(s)/record(s) of the Respondent
pertaining to the present case;
8.2. Direct the Respondent to re-fix the pay of the Applicant in
accordance with the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules,
1997, published in the extraordinary gazette as G.S.R. 569(E) dated
30.09.1997 after granting one increment w.e.f. the date of the
annual increment.;
8.3. Direct the Respondent to re-fix the pensionary and other
connected benefits in accordance with the re-fixed basic pay;
8.4. Direct the Respondent to immediately release the arrears of
Basic Pay, Pensionary Benefits and such other benefits, to which,
the Applicant is entitled, after the fixation of the Basic Pay in
accordance with the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules,
1997.
8.5. Award cost of the present proceedings to the Applicant;
8.6. Grant any such other and further relief as this Hon'ble
Tribunal may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstance of the
present case."
7. Though the case for re-fixation of pay, as urged by the
petitioner, was based on the date from which he was entitled to be
granted increment, the ultimate eventuate, if the petitioner's stand was
to be accepted, would be upward revision of his pay scale. In effect,
therefore, the petitioner was seeking upward revision of his pay scale
from 1 January 1996.
8. Thus viewed, the case is squarely covered by the judgment of
the Supreme Court in M.R. Gupta.
9. M.R. Gupta was a case in which the learned Tribunal had been
approached eleven years after the date with effect from which,
according to the appellant in that case, his pay was wrongly fixed. The
Supreme Court held that a plea of erroneous fixation of pay resulted in
a recurring cause of action every month when the petitioner would be
entitled to draw his salary. As such, it was held that the learned
Tribunal had erred in rejecting the case of the appellant, M.R. Gupta
on the ground of limitation. This principle was subsequently clarified
in Union of India v Tarsem Singh3, which held that, though the claim
- in that case, for pension - could not have been dismissed on the
ground of delay, the arrears payable would only be for a period of
three years prior to the filing of the writ petition before the Court.
10. Accordingly, keeping in mind the aforesaid decisions, the
impugned order dated 4 May 2023 passed by the learned Tribunal in
OA 1302/2023 is quashed and set aside.
11. Inasmuch as the learned Tribunal has not addressed itself to the
merits of the petitioner's claim, keeping in mind the judgment of the
Seven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v
Union of India4, which does not entitle this Court to examine the
claim as a court of first instance, we deem it appropriate to remand
OA 1302/2023 for consideration on merits afresh to the learned
Tribunal. In case the petitioner's claim is found to be meritorious, the
learned Tribunal would consider the aspect of the arrears to which the
petitioner, if at all, would be entitled, keeping in mind the law that has
(2008) 8 SCC 648
(1997) 3 SCC 261
been laid down on the subject.
12. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is partly
allowed.
13. Both parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal
on 8 November 2024.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.
OCTOBER 24, 2024/j
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
