Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, NAVIN CHAWLA
Murari Lal (Insp. Gd) – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| 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 sel
The court affirmed that appointments via LDCE are promotions, allowing petitioners to exercise pay options under CCS rules despite claims of fresh appointments.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioners had exercised their option within time as per the Government Order dated 17.10.2008 and were entitled to the benefits thereund....
Denial of pay fixation option to a senior employee in favor of a junior constitutes discrimination, violating principles of equality under Article 14.
In the matters of this kind the approach is not go entirely on the issue of the lapses and delay but to examine the merits. It is with that approach that this Court has required the Opposite Parties ....
Pre-2008 pay fixation option invalid under CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008; fresh option required upon implementation.
Notional pay revisions in prior PSU employment, effective before resignation and certified in last pay certificate, entitle protection and refixation in new Central Government post under FR 21/22, tr....
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
