Delhi High Court
Satya Bir Singh vs Union Of India And Ors on 24 July, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 24.07.2025
+ W.P.(C) 13223/2019
SATYA BIR SINGH
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sourabh Ahuja, Adv
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr.Pradeep Kumar Jha, SPC
for UOI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed challenging the Order dated
23.09.2019 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, 'Tribunal'), in
O.A. No. 2822/2019, titled Sh. Satya Bir Singh v. The Union of
India & Ors., dismissing the O.A. filed by the petitioner herein on the
ground that it is being barred by limitation.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of
the petitioner for the grant of Non-Functional Upgradation was based
on the judgment dated 06.09.2010 of the High Court of Judicature at
Madras in W.P.(C) 13225/2010, titled M. Subramaniam v. Union of
India & Ors. The Civil Appeal against the said judgment, being Civil
Appeal No. 8883/2011, was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide
Order dated 10.10.2017. The Review Petition against the same, filed
by the respondents, being Review Petition No. 2512/2018, was also
dismissed vide Order dated 23.08.2018.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
judgment of the High Court of Madras in M. Subramaniam (supra)
was a judgment in rem and not in personam, as would be evident from
a reading of paragraph 8 of the same, which is reproduced below:
"8. Thus, if the officer has, completed 4-years
on 1.1.2006 or earlier, he will be given the
non-functional upgradation with effect from
1.1.2006 and if the officer completes 4-year on
a date after such 1.1.2006, he will be given
non-functional upgradation from such date on
which he completes 4-year in the pay scale of
Rs.7,500-12,000 (pre-revised), since the
petitioner admittedly completed 4-year period
in the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 as on
1.1.2008, he is entitled to grade pay of
Rs.5400/-. In fact, the Government of India,
having accepted the recommendations of the
6th Pay Commission, issued a resolution dated
29.8.2008 granting grade pay of Rs.5400/- to
the Group B Officers in pay Band 2 on non-
functional basis after four years of regular
service in the grade pay of Rs. 4800/- in pay
band 2. Therefore, denial of the same benefit
to the petitioner based on the clarification
issued by the Under Secretary to the
Government was contrary to the above said
clarification and without amending the rules of
the revised pay scale, such decision cannot be
taken. Therefore, we are inclined to interfere
with the order of the Tribunal."
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further places reliance on
the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors., (2015) 1 SCC 347, to submit that
where a judgment is in rem, its benefit must be extended by the
Government to all similarly situated officers, without insisting on
them to approach the Court/Tribunal to seek similar relief.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,
reiterates that the O.A. filed by the petitioner was highly belated and,
therefore, has been rightly dismissed on the ground of limitation.
6. We find that the issue as to whether the judgment of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in M. Subramaniam (supra) has to be
treated as a judgment in rem or a judgment in personam, has not been
considered by the learned Tribunal while passing the Impugned Order.
Needless to state, if it was a judgment in rem, it was for the
respondents to have extended the same benefit to the petitioner,
without forcing the petitioner to approach the learned Tribunal for
such similar relief. The effect of dismissal of the Civil Appeal as also
the Review Petition by the Supreme Court, vide Orders dated
10.10.2017 and 23.08.2018, respectively, also needed to be
considered by the learned Tribunal.
7. We, therefore, set aside the Impugned Order, restore the O.A.to
its original number and remand the same back to the learned Tribunal.
The learned Tribunal shall consider the issue of limitation afresh in the
light of the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Arvind
Kumar Srivastava (supra), and in case, it finds that the O.A. was filed
within the period of limitation as prescribed in Section 21 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, it shall proceed to consider the
claim of the petitioner on merits. The learned Tribunal shall also be
entitled to mould the relief, if the facts of the case so warrant.
8. The parties shall appear before the learned Tribunal on 18th
August, 2025. The learned Tribunal is requested to expedite the
hearing of the O.A.
9. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
MADHU JAIN, J
JULY 24, 2025/rv/SJ
