Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, ASHA MENON
Harjinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek pay re-fixation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. ldce appointments treated as promotions. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. pending appeals affect the case. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. comprehensive analysis of promotion rules. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 12) |
| 5. entitlement to revised options and benefits. (Para 13 , 14) |
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.3636/20
Appointments via LDCE must be treated as promotions for pay fixation purposes, entitling candidates to benefits under the CCS Rules despite service start dates.
LDCE is a mode of promotion and not a fresh appointment in government service, as established by the Division Bench judgment and internal notings of the respondents.
The court affirmed that appointments via LDCE are promotions, allowing petitioners to exercise pay options under CCS rules despite claims of fresh appointments.
Promotion under LDCE quota is not automatic and entails a process, and there can be no parity between promotion under 80% quota and promotion under LDCE quota.
Denial of pay fixation option to a senior employee in favor of a junior constitutes discrimination, violating principles of equality under Article 14.
Promotions obtained via LDCE are considered direct recruitment, thus not offsetting eligibility for MACP benefits.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
