Back
2025 Supreme(Del) 505
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANIL KSHETARPAL, HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, JJ.
Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Anil Kumar & Ors – Respondents
LPA 1254 of 2007
Decided On : 21-08-2025
For the Appellant :Ms. Latika Choudhary, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate.
An autonomously revised pay scale can only be withdrawn with substantiated justification; arbitrary actions violate employee rights per applicable employment laws.
Headnote:(A) Letters Patent - Clauses 10 and 14 - CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990 - Appeal against the judgment restoring revised pay scales to employees and directing payment of arrears. (Paras 1, 4).
(B) Employment Law - Discrimination and fundamental rights - The withdrawal of pay scale revisions from employees lacks justification and violates their rights. (Paras 11, 12).
(C) Authority of autonomous bodies - An autonomous body’s unilateral actions affecting pay scales must be properly justified; mere assertions of error are insufficient. (Paras 14, 15, 22).
(D) Rights of beneficiaries - Government must provide reasons for withdrawing benefits; failure to do so is treated as arbitrary. (Paras 17, 20, 23). (E) Pay Commission Recommendations - Such recommendations, once implemented, cannot be rescinded without valid cause. (Paras 21, 24).
Findings of Court:
The higher pay scales granted to the employees must be restored, quashing the order that sought to reduce them. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision. (Paras 25, 26).
Issues: The main issues included the authority of the autonomous body to revise pay scales and the legality of withdrawing such benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the revision of pay scales was justified under the 5th Pay Commission’s recommendations and could not be arbitrarily rescinded, reinforcing the protection of employee entitlements.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appeals against judgments (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. appellants argue unauthorized pay scale changes (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. employees argue against pay disparity (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. court analysis of illegal pay scale withdrawal (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. court affirms protection of benefits as per rules (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. appeal dismissed; rights restored (Para 25) |
| 7. conclusion and disposition of the case (Para 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT :
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR J.
1. The present appeal, filed under Clauses 10 and 14 of the LETTERS PATENT , challenges the judgment dated 31.05.2007, [Impugned Judgement] passed in W.P.(C) No. 6029/2002 titled “Sh. Anil Kumar & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.”. This said judgment was a common one, also deciding W.P.(C) 4051/2002 titled “Deep Chand & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.”.
2. Against the Impugned Judgment, two separate LETTERS PATENT Appeals were filed, viz., LPA 1253/2007 and LPA 1254/2007, the latter being the present appeal.
3. It is relevant to note at the outset that LPA 1253/2007, filed in respect of W.P.(C) 4051/2002, was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 23.09.2016, which recorded the following:-
“LPA No. 1253/2007
Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the respondents would not rely upon the impugned judgment passed by the single Judge to claim any relief as the respondents were promoted as Junior Engineers in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 in June, 1996. In other words, the respondents state that they would forego their claim for the higher pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 from January, 1996 till June, 1996. The statement made by the counsel for the respondents is taken on record.
In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents, counsel for the appellant states that he would not press the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. We clarify that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits and in case a similar issue arises, it will be open to the appellant to challenge and question the submissions made by the writ petitioner/employee on merits.
LPA No. 1254/2007
List on 11th November, 2016.”
4. In the present appeal, the Appellant challenges that part of the impugned judgment relating to W.P.(C) 6029/2002, whereby the Court restored the revised pay scale of the Respondents (“Employees”) as granted by order dated 26.04.2002, and directed payment of arrears based on the said revised pay scale.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT:
5. Shorn of unnecessary details, the limited contentions advanced by the Appellant are that Respondent No. 6/Delhi Energy Development Agency, [DEDA] , being an autonomous body under the Appellant, lacked the authority to unilaterally upgrade the pay scales of its employees. It is the Appellant’s case that such unauthorized upgradation necessitated the issuance of the order dated 21.06.2002, which cancelled, with retrospective effect, the earlier order dated 26.04.2002 revising the respondents’ pay scales.
6. Learned counsel for the Appellant would contend that the pay scale of Rs. 4,000-6,000/- was not the scale to which the employees were entitled, as they had been redeployed, and the order of redeployment stipulated that they would not be entitled to the higher pay scale. It would further be submitted that the employees were only entitled to protection of their existing pay scale, which was at the level of Rs. 3,050-4,590/-.
7. Learned counsel for the Appellant would further contend that the three other personnel who continued to receive a higher pay scale did so by virtue of their continued service with DEDA, unlike the employees herein, who had been redeployed.
CONTENTIONS OF THE EMPLOYEES
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the Employees would place reliance on the seniority list and submit that the individuals who were drawing a higher pay scale are, in fact, junior to the employees therein. It would be contended that such an anomaly cannot be
