* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: 20.01.2026 % Judgment delivered on: 07.04.2026 + LPA 691/2025 THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, MMTC LIMITED AND ANR .....Appellants versus VIKAS GUPTA AND ORS .....Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case For the Appellants : Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Anshul Rai, Mr. S.K. Pandey, Ms. Mallika Ranjan, Ms. Muskan Jain, Mr. Pranav Rastogi, Ms. Ashu Tiwari & Ms. Khushi Sood, Advocates.

For the Respondents : Mr. V.K. Gupta, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey- SPC along with Mr. Sarvesh Shrivastav-GP for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

JUDGMENT

TEJAS KARIA, J LPA 691/2025

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.09.2025 (“Impugned Judgment”) passed in W.P.(C) 13053/2018 (“Writ Petition”), whereby the Writ Petition filed by Respondent No. 1 was disposed of by directing the Appellants to revise Respondent No. 1’s Basic Pay to ₹19,020/- per month with effect from

13.07.2007 and grant consequential benefits of such relief.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. Respondent No. 1 is a person with disability having Locomotors Disability of 79%, which has increased to 86%, and cannot travel without an escort. The Appellants appointed Respondent No. 1 as Deputy Manager (Marketing) by way of an Appointment Letter dated 28.06.2007 with effect from 13.07.2007 under the Special Recruitment Drive for Persons with Disabilities (“PWDs”) in the Pay Scale of ₹8,600-250-14,600/- with additional 5 increments. On 12.09.2007, the Appellants issued an addendum to the Letter of Appointment of Respondent No. 1 and fixed Basic Pay at ₹9,850/- per month.

3. On 26.11.2008, the pay scale of Respondent No. 1 was revised to ₹16,400-3%-40,500/- with effect from 01.01.2007 and Respondent No. 1’s Basic Pay was fixed as ₹17,650/-, which was communicated to Respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 19.05.2009 by the Appellants.

4. As per the Appellants, the Basic Pay fixed at ₹17,650/- by adding ₹1,250/- as an additional pay to the minimum revised scale of ₹16,400/- per month was erroneous as it should have been ₹19,020/- per month.

5. Accordingly, between 05.06.2009 and 03.05.2017, Respondent No. 1 made several representations to the Appellants for removing anomaly in his Pay Scale by fixing the Basic Pay to ₹19,020/- per month. According to the claim of Respondent No. 1, the Appellants did not grant 5 increments to Respondent No. 1 and fixed the revised Basic Pay to ₹17,650/- by adding ₹1,250/- by calculating ₹250/- each for total 5 increments as applicable to old scale of ₹8,600-250-14,600/- with effect from 01.01.2007 instead of ₹19,020/- after adding 5 increments of 3% cumulative in the Pay Scale of ₹16,400-3%-40,500/-. According to Respondent No. 1, no action was taken by the Appellants despite these representations.

6. In view of the same, Respondent No. 1 filed the Writ Petition. During the course of the proceedings of the Writ Petition, Prayers (b) and (c) were disposed of by directing the Appellants to treat the same as representation by Respondent No. 1 and a speaking order be passed within two months to be duly communicated to Respondent No. 1. Accordingly, the Impugned Judgment granted only Prayer (a) of the Writ Petition by directing the Appellants to revise the Basic Pay of Respondent No. 1 to ₹19,020/- with effect from 13.01.2007 and consequential benefits pursuant to the implementation of the pay revision.

7. Being aggrieved by the Impugned Judgment, the present Appeal has been filed.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

8. The learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that:

8.1. The learned Single Judge erred in holding that 5 increments granted to Respondent No. 1 were part of the Basic Pay by completely ignoring that such increments were already given in view of the pre-revised Pay Scale of ₹8,600-250-14,600/- in order to maintain pay parity with other progressive Public