Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Saurabh Banerjee, JJ.
Robin Kumar (Insp/Gd) - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 13108 of 2022
Decided On : 09-09-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges incorrect pay fixation (Para 3) |
| 2. reference to precedents supporting petitioner's claims (Para 4) |
| 3. court orders extension of benefits under conditions (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. case disposed with right to appeal (Para 7 , 8) |
CM APPL. 39762/2022 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The application is accordingly disposed of.
W.P.(C) 13108/2022
3. By way of the present petition, petitioner seeks quashing of pay fixation orders of the petitioners upon their promotion to the rank of Sub Inspector in CRPF through LDCE-2010 to the extent that the said pay fixation orders fixed the pay of petitioner incorrectly at Rs.9300-34800 + Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-. Moreover, he seeks directions to the respondents to refix the pay of the petitioners in the pre-revised pay structure being Rs.10230-34800 + Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- along with all arrears and consequential benefits.
4. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the decisions of co-ordinate bench in the batch cases of W.P.(C) 3636/2016 titled as Braham Prakash vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 16.10.2018; W.P.(C) 9256/2020 titled as Harjinder Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 06.01.2021; and W.P.(C) 1806/2021 titled as Insp. GD Murari Lal vs. Union of India decided on 31.08.2021, wherein similar reliefs have been granted.
5. Consequently, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to extend the benefits of the revised option exercised by the petitioner in terms of the abovementioned judgments and grant them all the consequential benefits to which they would be entitled within three months from today, provided the petitioners fulfill the criteria stipulated and communicate the said decision thereof to the petitioners within one week thereafter.
6. It is made clear that if the respondents find that any of the petitioner is not fulfilling the stipulated criteria, a reasoned rejection order qua the said petitioner shall be passed and communicated to the said petitioner within one week thereafter.
7. In view of above, petition is disposed.
8. Needless to state that if any of the petitioners are still aggrieved by the decision to be taken, they may challenge the same before the appropriate forum.
The court's decision was influenced by the implementation of previous judgments and the direction to the respondents to take a final decision in parity with the previous cases.
No recovery of excess selection grade pay already disbursed to promoted teachers; refixation deferred until FR 22-B amendment; post-amendment revisions prospective; pension on last drawn scale.
No recovery of excess pay from selection grade scales; refixation post FR 22-B amendment prospectively.
No recovery of excess selection grade pay; refixation post FR 22-B amendment prospectively.
No recovery of excess pay from retired employees' retiral benefits; refixation prospective post FR 22-B amendment.
Appointments via LDCE must be treated as promotions for pay fixation purposes, entitling candidates to benefits under the CCS Rules despite service start dates.
Couty of the considered view that the impugned order dated 27.11.2017 is wrong, illegal and arbitrary, as it does not have the backing of any rule or applicable service condition behind it.
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
