$~22 and 23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 09^th August, 2024 + W.P.(C) 10532/2022 RADHE SHIAM SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate versus RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, Central Government Standing Counsel with Mr.

Tribhuvan and Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocates

23 + W.P.(C) 10585/2022 RAM PRAKASH MITTAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate versus RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, Central Government Standing Counsel with Mr.

Tribhuvan and Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1. These writ petitions have been preferred on behalf of the Petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for refixing their consultancy fee at par with other similarly placed persons at enhanced rates for the periods in question. As common issues arise in both the writ Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAUSHAL W.P.(C) 10532/2022 and W.P.(C) 10585/2022 Page 1 of 10 petitions, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

W.P.(C) 10532/2022

2. Petitioner retired from Rajya Sabha Secretariat (‘RSS’) as Joint Director on 31.07.2012 and at the relevant time was drawing pay and emoluments under 6^th Central Pay Commission (‘CPC’)/pay structure under 4^th Parliamentary Pay Committee (‘PPC’). He was engaged as a Consultant initially for a period of 6 months w.e.f. 15.07.2016 on a consultancy fee of Rs.70,859/- per month after he accepted the terms and conditions of appointment incorporated in Memorandum dated 15.07.2016. Petitioner’s period of engagement was extended from time to time till 30.04.2018 on the same terms and conditions and in the interregnum, relaxation in maximum age limit of 65 years was given to the Petitioner w.e.f. 01.08.2017.

3. Petitioner was again engaged as a Consultant from 13.07.2018 for an initial period of 6 months on the same consultancy fee and he accepted the terms and conditions contained in Memorandum dated 12.07.2018. The period of engagement was extended from time to time till 12.07.2020 on the same consultancy fee.

4. Petitioner avers that under 7^th CPC recommendations, his Basic Pension was revised to Rs.68,144/- per month and further revised to Rs.69,150/- w.e.f. 01.01.2016 on recommendations of PPC. Petitioner made a representation on 27/28.09.2018 to the Respondent seeking re-fixation of his consultancy fee on the basis of revision in Pension under 7^th CPC and also alleged discrimination claiming that similarly placed persons such as one Sh. B.K. Shrivastava, who had retired in the year 2019 from Lok Sabha Secretariat as Joint Director (R) with Basic Pension of Rs.71,000/- per Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAUSHAL W.P.(C) 10532/2022 and W.P.(C) 10585/2022 Page 2 of 10 month was appointed at a Consultancy fee of Rs.1,11,817/- per month. Not getting any favourable response from the Respondent, Petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition.

W.P.(C) 10585/2022

5. Petitioner retired from Lok Sabha Secretariat (‘LSS’) as Joint Director on 31.07.2011 drawing pay and emoluments under 6^th CPC/pay structure under 4^th PPC. He was engaged as a Consultant initially for a period of 6 months w.e.f. 16.11.2016 after he accepted the terms and conditions of appointment contained in Memorandum dated 09.11.2016. The consultancy fee was fixed at a consolidated amount of Rs.70,825/- per month. The period of engagement was extended from time to time till 30.04.2018 and relaxation in the maximum age limit of 65 years was granted to the Petitioner.

6. Petitioner was again engaged as a Consultant from 13.07.2018 for an initial period of 6 months as per terms and conditions contained in Memorandum dated 12.07.2018 and the period was extended from time to time till 12.07.2020. The terms and conditions of appointment including the consultancy fee remained the same.