$~89 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 17364/2024 and CAV 617/2024, CM APPL.

73918/2024 & 73919/2024 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANR .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Ashish K. Dixit, CGSC with Mr. Shivam Tiwari, Ms. Urmila Sharma, Ms. Venni Kakkar and Ms. Deepika Kalra, Advs.

versus ROHTASH KUMAR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ritank Kumar, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGMENT (ORAL)

% 04.03.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. The Respondent joined the Delhi Police as a Constable and superannuated as a Sub-Inspector on 31 March 2022.

2. After superannuation, he addressed a representation to the petitioners on 20 May 2022 in which he submitted that Chandrabhan, one of his juniors, was drawing a higher basic pay than him. He, therefore, sought refixation of his pay so that he was not disadvantageously placed vis-à-vis the aforementioned Chandrabhan. The respondent’s representation was rejected by the Deputy Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 17364/2024 Page 1 of 23 Digitally Signed By:A JIT Commissioner of Police, [“DCP”, hereinafter] by orders dated 6 July 2022 and 14 July 2022, which endeavored to point out that the disparity between the respondent’s pay scale and the pay scale of Chandrabhan was owning to the failure, on the part of the respondent, to exercise his option for being provided the benefit of second financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme, [“ACP Scheme”, hereinafter], which resulted in his being granted the ACP benefit from the date when the Scheme became operational. To clarify, persons who were granted the benefit of the ACP Scheme had the right to exercise the option to avail the benefit of the scheme from the date of implementation of the scheme or, alternatively, from the date after they were granted their first annual increment. Naturally, where the latter option was exercised, as the ACP would be fixed on the total of the basic pay along with the annual increment earned in the interregnum, the employee would earn an additional financial benefit, as against the pay which he would earn if the ACP upgradation were to be granted on the basic pay alone.

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid communications dated 6 July 2022 and 14 July 2022, addressed to him by the DCP, the respondent petitioned the Central Administrative Tribunal, [“the Tribunal”, hereinafter] by way of OA 3371/2022, seeking quashing of the said letters and refixation of his pay with effect from 2006 by allowing him to exercise his option to be granted ACP benefit after he drew his first annual increment that year. 4. In other words, the respondent was seeking to have his pay Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 17364/2024 Page 2 of 23

Digitally Signed By:A JIT refixed retrospectively after 16 years. This position is undisputed.

5. Before the Tribunal, the petitioners sought to contend that the respondent had the opportunity, at the time when he was granted his ACP benefit, to exercise the option to have his pay fixed under the ACP scheme after drawing his first annual increment. That option was, however, required to be exercised within one month from the date of grant of the benefit under the ACP Scheme. The order by which the pay of the respondent was refixed under the ACP Scheme was issued on 24 January 2006. As the respondent failed to exercise his option to have the benefit of the ACP Scheme extended to him after he drew his next annual increment, the benefit of the Scheme was made immediately available to him. It was because of this that the scale of pay of the respondent was below that of Chanderbhan.

6. Adjudicating the OA, the Tribunal has, by judgment dated 24 September 2024, observed and held as under :

“6.2. The only ground for denial of the higher pay scale to the applicant is non-submission of the Option. In such situation the respondents themselves should have taken steps to remove this anomaly when they came to know that the applicant has not submitted his Option due to unawaren