SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

DELHI HIGH COURT
SUJIT GANGOPADHYAY – Appellant
Versus
TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT AND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ORS – Respondent
W.P.(C)-7498/2012



W.P.(C) 7498/2012

Page 1 of 41

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on: 2nd June, 2022

Pronounced on: 12th July, 2022

+

W.P.(C) 7498/2012

SUJIT GANGOPADHYAY

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Meet Malhotra, Sr. Advocate

with Mr. Diggaj Pathak, Mr. Ravi

S.S. Chauhan, Ms. Pallak Singh,

Ms. Shweta Sharma and Ms.

Prachi Kohli, Advocates

versus

TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT AND

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ORS

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Sharath Sampath, Advocate

for R-1

Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Mr. Sanjiv K.

Saxena, Mr. Mukesh K. Tiwari and

Mr. Ramneek Mishra, Advocates

for R-2 and 3

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

J U D G M E N T

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

1.

The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India is filed for issuance of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate

writ to quash and set aside order dated 26th September 2011 and for

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002547

W.P.(C) 7498/2012

Page 2 of 41

directing the respondents to grant Pay Band-2 with Grade Pay of Rs.

4600, with effect from, 1st January 2006.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2.

The petitioner joined as Lower Division Clerk with the Central

Government in 1983 and was thereafter, promoted to the level of Upper

Division Clerk. After being promoted to the level of Upper Division

Clerk, he was promoted to the post of Assistant, which the petitioner is

holding as on date with respondent No. l, on regular basis.

3.

On 11th September 2006, a proposal was initiated by the respondent

no.3 for upgradation of the pay-scale of the Assistants and Personal

Assistants (hereinafter “PAs”) of Central Secretariat Service (hereinafter

CSS”) and Central Secretariat Stenographer Service (hereinafter

CSSS”) from the scale of Rs.5500-9000 to that of Rs. 6500-10500 in

view of the desirability of parity with the pay-scale of Inspectors and

other analogous posts in Central Board of Direct Taxes/Central Board of

Excise and Customs (CBDT/CBEC). Thereafter, Sixth Central Pay

Commission had recommended that the pre-revised scales of Rs.5000-

8000, Rs.5500-9000, Rs.6500-10500 be merged into a revised pay-band

of Rs.9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs.4200 in pay band PB-II. The

Department of Personnel and Training (hereinafter “DoPT”) further

increased Grade Pay of Rs. 4200-4600 with respect to Stenographers

Grade „C‟ working in CSSS and Assistants in CSS in terms of the Office

Memorandum

issued

by

the

office

of

Department

of

Expenditure/respondent no.3 on 16th November 2009.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002547

W.P.(C) 7498/2012

Page 3 of 41

4.

The DoPT issued two OMs. One was issued on 21st December

2009 granting the benefit of Grade Pay of Rs.4600 to the Assistants of

CSS. The second was issued on 23rd December 2009 granting the benefit

of Grade Pay of Rs.4600 to Stenographer Grade C (PA) in CSSS. These

benefits were accorded w.e.f. 1st January 2006.

5.

To claim the benefits, in pursuance of the proposal by the

respondent no. 3 and the OMs issued by the DoPT, the Petitioner made a

representation dated 5th January 2007 to respondent no. l seeking Pay

Band-2 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4600. Subsequent representations were

also made by the petitioner thereafter.

6.

On 26th September 2011, respondent no.1 rejected the request for

up-gradation of the pay scale from Rs. 5500-9000 to Rs. 6500-10500 and

Grade Pay of Rs. 4600 of the petitioner, in light of the letter dated 18th

July 2011 of DoPT that since, there has been no direct recruitment

through Competitive Examination in the TDSAT to the post of Assistant

and the posts are being filled on deputation basis, therefore, the Assistants

of TDSAT are not at par with the Assistants of CSS and CSSS.

7.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the respondents denied

him the benefit of increase

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top