The court affirmed that appointments via LDCE are promotions, allowing petitioners to exercise pay options under CCS rules despite claims of fresh appointments.

Headnote:(A) CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 - Rule 5 and Explanation 2 - Writ petition for re-fixing pay according to 6th Central Pay Commission's recommendations - Petitioners allowed to exercise option despite claims of fresh appointments - Previous decision in Braham Prakash case recognized as authority on the issue. (Paras 3, 12, 14)

(B) Administrative Law - Doctrine of Precedent - Legal principles regarding the applicability of earlier rulings considered, affirming the need for consistency in judicial decisions. (Para 6)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, members of the CRPF, initially appointed in 2001, promoted through LDCE in 2008, claimed entitlement to revised pay benefits. Respondents denied claims based on misinterpretation of employment timelines under CCS (RP) Rules.

Findings of Court:
Court ruled that the appointments through LDCE should be treated as promotions, confirming the right of petitioners to exercise pay options under CCS Rules.

Issues: The court addressed whether appointments via LDCE constituted fresh appointments and eligibility under pay rules.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the erroneous denial of revised pay benefits, confirming that prior government service status applied, based on precedent.

Result: Writ petition disposed of in favor of petitioners; respondents directed to grant revised option benefits within eight weeks.

Table of Content
1. petitioners seek pay revision under ccs rules (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. respondents argue some benefits granted (Para 5)
3. court clarifies application of ccs rules (Para 6 , 10 , 12 , 13)
4. court orders benefit extension to petitioners (Para 8 , 9 , 14)
5. ldce appointments treated as promotions (Para 11)

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J.: (Oral)--The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

2. Present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to the Respondents to immediately re-fix the basic pay/salary of the Petitioners as per the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission along with the arrears and interest due.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners states that the issue raised in the present writ petition has already been decided in the case of Braham Prakash & Ors. vs. Union of India W.P. (C) 3636/2006 and W.P. (C) 8451/2017. He emphasises that the Petitioners are all similarly situated persons as they are members of the CRPF. He states that the Petitioners joined CRPF as Constable (GD) in the year 2001. He further states that the Petitioners appeared in LDCE-2008 Exam and were promoted to SI/GD. He points out that before the Petitioners were selected as SI/GD, the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission came into force and in accordance with Rule 5 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, the Central Government employees were entitled to give an option stating whether they want to switch over to a revised pay structure and this was to be done within three months from the date of issuance of the rules.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners states that since the Petitioners were posted at different stations during their service, most of the Petitioners were not aware about the option that needed to be submitted to the Respondents. He states that the Petitioners were subsequently promoted to the rank of Insp/GD in 2011.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents states that though three of the Petitioners, namely, Petitioners nos.15, 18 and 21 have been granted relief prayed for, yet no order has been passed with regard to the other Petitioners.

6. 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 appointed;

Provided that a Government servant may elect to continue to draw pay in the existing scale until the date on which he earns his next or any subsequent increment in the existing scale or until he vacates his post or ceases to draw pay in that scale.

Provided further that in cases where a Government servant has been placed in a