Delhi High Court - Orders
Respondents Under Section 151 C.P.C. ... vs Union Of India & Anr on 29 September, 2020
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Asha Menon
$~VC-1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C) 5264/2020, C.M. Appl. No.24257/2020 (of the
respondents under Section 151 C.P.C. seeking permission for
extension of time for taking administrative decision in compliance
of order dated 14.08.2020)
RAJ KUMAR & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ravi Rai, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC with
Pushpender Saxena (LO CISF)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
ORDER
% 29.09.2020
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
C.M. Appl. No.24257/2020 (of the respondents for extension of time for taking administrative decision in compliance of order dated 14th August, 2020)
1. This application is filed, pleading (i) that the matter has huge financial and administrative implications and the approval of various departments/authorities is required to be obtained for taking an administrative decision; (ii) that as of now, the matter is being contemplated at the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), so as to decide what course of action is to be taken in the light of huge W.P. (C) 5264/2020 Page 1 of 4 financial implications; (iii) further time of eight weeks is required for implementing the judgment.
2. We have enquired from the counsel for the respondents/ applicants Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), whether the respondents CISF have complied with the judgment in Vinoj V.V. and Ors. v Union of India and Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12714 (DB) and in a whole lot of other petitions claiming the same relief as granted to the petitioners in Vinoj V.V. supra and following which judgment we had also allowed this petition.
3. The counsel for the respondents/applicants CISF states that he has no instructions in this regard.
4. The counsel for the petitioners appearing on advance notice states that payment, including of arrears has been made to the petitioners in Vinoj V.V. supra.
5. Once it is so, we see no reason for the respondents CISF to be required to take any decision, for taking of which, time is sought. The respondents CISF cannot discriminate between Head Constables (Driver/Driver-cum-Pump- Operators) in the matter of emoluments and once the judgment in favour of some has been accepted and complied with, others similarly placed also have to be necessarily paid.
6. On enquiry, the counsel for the respondent/applicants CISF confirms that all the Standing Counsels of the Government at the W.P. (C) 5264/2020 Page 2 of 4 same level are paid the same fee and no discrimination is made in the matter of payment of fee between the numerous Standing Counsels. If it is so with regard to the legal profession, there is no reason why the same principle should not apply to Head Constables of the respondents CISF who are all similarly placed.
7. Discrimination, in fact, becomes more apparent to personnel working in an organization and who often are also found to be living alongwith their families, in close proximity, in official accommodation provided to them. Granting monetary benefit to some and not to others can be a cause of heartburn and also affect the morale of the personnel of the Force like the respondents CISF and which in turn affects the security of the installations guarded by such personnel.
8. We are thus not satisfied with the reason given for not complying with the judgment.
9. The counsel for the petitioner informs that in the SLP preferred to the Supreme Court against the judgment in Vinoj V.V., supra, the ground of financial implications was expressly taken and urged by Ms. Madhavi Divan, Additional Solicitor General who had appeared before the Supreme Court, but was not accepted. It is further informed that the respondents CISF had also filed a Review Petition, again specifically pleading the aspect of financial implications but the Review Petition was also dismissed.
10. Once it is so, the question of any decision being required to W.P. (C) 5264/2020 Page 3 of 4 be taken does not arise. Moreover, if the Ministry of Finance is to be consulted, the said consultation should be at the time of defending the petitions and not after the judgments have been pronounced and have attained finality and are only to be complied with.
11. Thus, while dismissing the application, we order that if the judgment is not complied with within a further period of eight weeks, interest @ 9% per annum on the arrears due shall run from expiry of four weeks herefrom and till the date of payment.
12. It is further directed that future emoluments of the petitioners at least be immediately commenced to be paid as per the revised salary, with effect from the month of November, 2020 onwards.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
ASHA MENON, J.
SEPTEMBER 29, 2020 pkb W.P. (C) 5264/2020 Page 4 of 4