$~80

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 11926/2021

DAMODARA BANGERA B .....Petitioner

Through: Ms. Saahila Lamba, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Raj Kumar Yadav, SPC with Mr. Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, GP and Mr. Sumit Kumar Raj, Ms. Preeti Gothwal

and Ms. Anjali Ahlawat, Advs.

Mr. Jivesh Kumar Tiwari, CGSC with Ms.

Samiksha, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

% 15.12.2025

C.HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. Consequent to his promotion as Sub Inspector (Ministerial), “SI” hereinafter in the Border Security Force², the petitioner, admittedly, assumed charge

of the post on 2 July 2000.

2. The order of promotion dated 9 June 2000 specifically stipulated that the promotion would be with immediate effect, but that financial benefits would accrue to the petitioner and other persons promoted by the order from the date of taking over charge of the new

assignment – in the case of the petitioner, of the post of SI.

3. As the petitioner was on sanctioned leave till 1 July 2000, the petitioner assumed charge of the post of SI on 2 July 2000. Accordingly, in terms of the promotion order dated 9 June 2000, the pay of the petitioner as SI was fixed with effect from 2 July 2000.

4. The petitioner did not raise any serious grievance about this, as according to the petitioner, it did not result in any considerable financial loss to him.

5. However, things changed with the issuance of an Office Memorandum³ dated 19 March 2012 by the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, consequent to the implementation of the recommendations of the 6^th Central Pay Commission and the promulgation of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. As per this OM, persons who were to get their annual increment between February and June 2006 were entitled to one increment on 1 January 2006 in the pre-revised scale.

6. As the petitioner’s pay in the post of SI had been fixed with effect from 2 July 2000, the annual increment of the petitioner in 2006 fell due on 2 July 2006. As a result, the petitioner lost out on the increment with effect from 1 January 2006, which was made available by the OM dated 19 March 2012 for employees whose annual increment became due between the months of February and June

2006.

7. In an attempt to obtain the benefit of the said OM, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court with the following prayers:

“In the facts and circumstances stated above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to:-

(i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing order dated

08.06.2021 issued by the respondents;

(ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to reckon date of assumption of charge by petitioner to the post of Sub Inspector (Ministerial) with effect from 09.06.2000 (date of promotion of petitioner to post of Sub- Inspector (Ministerial)) and consequently grant one increment on 01.01.2006 in the pre-revised pay scale and thereafter next increment in the revised pay structure on 01.07.2006 in terms of paragraph 3 of office memorandum dated 19.03.2012 and other consequential benefits;

(iii) Pass any such other order as it may deem fit to this Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

8. We have heard Ms. Saahila Lamba, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Raj Kumar Yadav, learned SPC for the respondents. Learned Counsel for the parties have also filed written submissions.

9. We deem it appropriate to reproduce the first three paragraphs of the written submissions filed by the petitioner, as they neatly encapsulate the exact claim of the petitioner in this petition, thus:

“1. By way of present petition, the petitioner is essentially seeking reckoning of his date of assumption of charge by petitioner to the post of Sub- Inspector (Ministerial) with effect from 09.06.2000 (date of issuance of promotion order of petitioner to post of Sub- Inspector (Ministerial)) and consequently grant one increment