Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, SAURABH BANERJEE
Robin Kumar (Insp/Gd) – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| 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 16.10.2
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
