Appointments via LDCE must be treated as promotions for pay fixation purposes, entitling candidates to benefits under the CCS Rules despite service start dates.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)--Present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of pay fixation orders of the petitioners upon their promotion to the rank of Sub-Inspector CRPF through LDCE to the extent that the said pay fixation orders fixed the pay of the petitioners incorrectly at Rs.9300-34800 + Grade pay of Rs.4200/- and to re-fix the pay of the petitioners in the pre-revised pay structure being Rs.10230-34800 + Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- as per the option form submitted by them in a time bound manner as per instructions laid down by the DOPT to ensure career progression along with all the consequential benefits and arrears as due to them.

2. In the alternative, the petitioners pray for a direction to the respondents to grant similar relief as was granted to similarly situated personnel of the Force by this Court in the case of Braham Prakash Vs. Union of India, W.P.(C) No.3636/2016 and connected matters vide judgment dated 16th October, 2018.

3. Mr.Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the LDCE is only a method of promotion and therefore, the appointment of the petitioners as Sub-Inspector by way of LDCE has to necessarily be treated as a promotion and not a fresh appointment in government service. In support of his submission, he relies upon the Division Bench judgment in W.P.(C) No.3636/2016.

4. He points out that a special leave petition filed against the judgment and order dated 16th October, 2018 has been dismissed by the Supreme Court and the said judgment has been implemented vide office order dated January, 2020 - which has been placed on record as Annexure `P-10'.

5. Issue notice.

6. Mr. R.V. Sinha, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He states that SLP against Division Bench judgment of this Court in Braham Prakash (supra) was dismissed on the ground of delay leaving the question of law open and that on account of dismissal of the SLP, the Division Bench judgment referred to herein had to be implemented. On instructions, he further states that the judgment in Braham Prakash (supra) has not attained finality inasmuch as certain SLPs are pending before the Apex Court.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the issue raised in the present writ petition is no longer res integra and is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench in Braham Prakash (supra); W.P.(C) No.3636/2016. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:

"7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that the only stand taken by the respondents to deny the petitioner the benefit of his revised option dated 03.12.2010, is that he being a fresh appointee to the post of Sub-Inspector (GD) w.e.f. 08.11.2007, was not eligible to exercise any option in accordance with Rule 5 of the CCS Rules as the said option was available only to persons who were already in service before 01.01.2006. It may be noted that it is undisputed before us that the petitioner had joined the CRPF on 23.02.2003 and was appointed as a Sub-Inspector (GD) on 08.11.2007 by way of LDCE. Therefore, the question before us would be whether upon joining the post of Sub Inspector (GD) by way of LDCE on 08.11.2007, it could be said that the petitioner had joined Government service after 01.01.2006.

8. Before we deal with the rival contentions of the parties, it is deemed it appropriate to refer to Rules 5 and 6 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, which read as under:

"5. Drawal of pay in the revised pay structure

Save as otherwise provided in these rules, a Government servant shall draw pay in the revised pay structure applicable to the post to which he is