Delhi High Court
Union Of India And Ors vs Shri Laxman Singh And Ors on 31 October, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 31.10.2025
+ W.P.(C) 16507/2025
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Jagdish Chandra, CGSC
with Mr. Sujeet Kumar, Adv.
versus
SHRI LAXMAN SINGH AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Utkarsh Kandpal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. As the learned counsel for the respondents has entered an
appearance in the instant matter, the caveat stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 16507/2025 & CM APPLs. 67642-44/2025
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners, challenging the
Order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the
'Tribunal') in O.A. No. 2922/2021, titled Laxman Singh & Ors. v.
Union of India & Ors., whereby the learned Tribunal allowed the
O.A. filed by the respondents herein with the following directions:
"13. In view of the same, we hereby are
allowing the present Original Application by
quashing and setting aside the impugned order
in so far as fixing the crucial date of
determination as on 20.11.2019 and the
crucial date for clarification ought to be from
the date of the Notification, ie, 09.04.2009,
when the office memorandum became
operational. Consequently, the applicants
shall be entitled to the benefits with effect from
the date of order. The aforesaid exercise shall
be carried out within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this order. All pending applications, if any,
shall also stand disposed of. No costs."
3. The dispute raised by the petitioners is covered by the Judgment
of this Court in All India Audit & Accounts Officers Asociation &
Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2013:DHC:4691-DB, wherein this
Court, after considering the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 and S.O.
946(E) issued on 09.04.2009, had held as under:
"17. In this case, the petitioner's argument for
status is not based on equal pay vis-à-vis
another set of officers, but on an independent
classification conducted under the Revised
Rules of 2008 and the DOPT memoranda
themselves, that took into account all relevant
factors in deciding the classification of various
officers. Here, the text of the Rules and the
Office Memoranda supports the Petitioners.
One aspect which has to be highlighted here is
that even under the pre 2008 dispensation, the
cadre to which the second and third petitioner
belong had been placed on par with Group A
in terms of the pay scale; significantly, their
classification was as Group B officers. The
2008 Rules brought about a radical change in
that they, as well as the Memoranda in
question, unambiguously placed the
Petitioners' posts in PB-3 and clearly spelt out
their classification as Group A officers
18. Finally, on the question of the mandatory
consultation with the UPSC for the
upgradation of the officers in question from
Group B to Group B, the CAT order does not
mention the particulars of any rule that
requires such consultation. Neither has the
learned counsel for the Central Government
despite an opportunity granted by this Court
through its order dated 10.9.2013 placed on
record any circular/memorandum that such
requires such consultation.
19. Accordingly, the impugned order of the
CAT dated 10.12.2012, as also the Office
Memoranda of the Central Government dated
11.4.2011, 17.6.2011 and 7.7.2011, which
deny the petitioners classification as Group A
officers along-with the attendant benefits, are
liable to be set aside as unreasonable and
arbitrary given the clear textual mandate of
the relevant rules. Thus, the classification of
Senior Audit and Senior Accounts officers are
Group A officers is mandated under the
applicable rules. A direction in terms of the
claims made by the petitioners is given; effect
shall be given by the respondents, to these
directions within six weeks. The writ petition is
allowed in these terms, without any order as to
costs."
4. The above Judgement has been upheld by the Supreme Court by
dismissing the Special Leave Appeal (C) No. 29186/2014 vide Order
dated 21.08.2018
5. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present
petition. The same, along with the pending applications, is accordingly
dismissed.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
MADHU JAIN, J
OCTOBER 31, 2025/b/P/DG
