Back
2025 Supreme(Del) 695
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NAVIN CHAWLA, RENU BHATNAGAR, JJ.
Union Of India And Ors - Petitioners
Versus
Ghanshyam Vashisht - Respondent
W.P.(C) 10081 of 2025 & CM APPL. 41840 of 2025
Decided on : 23-07-2025
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Government Employment
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Legal Principles - The interpretation of governmental resolutions regarding pay grades must adhere strictly to the texts and should not create artificial distinctions - The eligibility for NFU applies to all officers in the Grade Pay of Rs.4800, regardless of how they achieved it. (Paras 12-24)
Facts of the case:
Challenging the Tribunal's decision that allowed a petitioner's claim for NFU benefits from four years of service at the Grade Pay of Rs.4800, previously denied by the petitioners based on alleged distinctions in service categories.
Findings of Court:
The Court upholds the Tribunal's decision, referencing precedent that recognizes eligibility of all officers at Grade Pay of Rs.4800 for NFU.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of applicable orders and resolutions regarding pay scales and eligibility criteria.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that government resolutions must be interpreted without adding or subtracting, affirming that distinctions created were unfounded and that NFU should pertain to all qualifying officers.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Certainly! Please provide the legal document content so I can analyze it and generate the key points with the appropriate references.
For the Petitioner: Mr.Sushil Kr. Panday, SPC
For the Respondent: Mr.Ankur Chhibber with Mr.Nikunj Arora, Advs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to tribunal's order (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's reliance on previous judgments and resolutions (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. respondent's counterarguments supported by precedent (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court's observation on previous judgments upheld (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. extension of benefits under resolution (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. analysis of css rules and their relation to the case (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. final decision dismissing the petition (Para 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT :
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners, challenging the Order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 2436/2022, titled Ghanshyam Vashisht & Ors. vs. Union of India and Anr., whereby the learned Tribunal allowed the said O.A. filed by the respondent herein and set aside the Office Order dated 01.02.2022 issued by the petitioners. The learned Tribunal, by the Impugned Order, has further directed that the respondent shall be entitled to Grade Pay of Rs.5400 in Pay Band-3 from the date of completion of four years of service in the Grade Pay of Rs.4800, along with all consequential benefits.
2. By the said Office Order, the petitioners had denied the benefitsof Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) in the Grade Pay of Rs.5400 in Pay Band-3 to the respondent from the date of completion of four years in the Grade Pay of Rs.4800.
3. The limited challenge of the petitioners to the Impugned Order is that the learned Tribunal has erred in placing reliance on the Judgment of the Madras High Court in M.Subramaniam v. Union of India & Ors., (in W.P. 13225/2010) and of this Court in Sushil Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., 2024:DHC:6969-DB.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that Resolution No.1/1/2008-IC dated 29.08.2008, by which the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC) were accepted by the Government of India, made a clear distinction between officers belonging to the Delhi and Andaman and Nicobar Island Civil Services, etc., vis-à-vis the Section Officers/Private Secretaries working in the Central Secretariat Services (in short, ‘CSS’). In support of the said plea, he draws our attention to paragraph X (b) of the said Resolution.
5. He submits that the judgment in M.Subramaniam (supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra), did not consider the cases of Section Officers working in the CSS, but rather those in other offices where such restrictions were not applicable and which were governed by Clause X (e) of the Resolution. He submits that, therefore, the above judgments would have no application to the facts of the present case, and the learned Tribunal has erred in relying upon the same while allowing the O.A. filed by the respondent.
6. He further placed reliance on the Note appended to Rule 17 of the Central Secretariat Service Rules, 2009, to submit that the said Note clearly states that the Non-Functional Pay Scale of Rs. 15600- Rs. 39100 (PB-3) plus Rs. 5400 (Grade Pay) is admissible only to the Section Officers of the service on completion of four years of approved service in that grade. It does not extend this benefit to other officers who are working in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4800 due to the grant of the Assured Career Progression (ACP) or the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) benefits.
7. He further places reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Rohitash Kumar & Ors v. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors., (2013) 11 SCC 451 , to submit that this Court, while interpreting the provisions of a Statute or, in this case, a Resolution of the Government of India, can neither add nor subtract even a single word, and cannot proceed on the assumption that the legislature, while enacting the Statute, has committed a mistake. He submits that the Proviso performs the function of excluding from the general ambit of the provision, and th
