Delhi High Court - Orders
Raj Kumar And Ors vs Union Of India& Anr on 9 August, 2021
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Amit Bansal
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4211/2021
RAJ KUMAR AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Amrender Mehta, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA& ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pratyush Miglani and Mr.
Shubham Nanda, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
ORDER
% 09.08.2021 [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] CM 24986/2021(for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant Rules.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 4211/2021
3. 110 petitioners, being Head Constables with the respondents Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), have filed the present petition seeking a direction to the respondents to, fix the basic pay of the petitioners at Rs.7,510/- instead of the current basic pay of Rs.6,750/- and to pay arrears thereof w.e.f. 1st July, 2006.
4. The petitioners were recruited as Head Constables (Drivers/DCPO) with the respondents CISF during the period from 1997 to 2001 on direct recruitment basis. The pay scale of the petitioners was at par with other W.P.(C) 4211/2021 Page 1 of 5 Head Constables spread in three branches of CISF viz. Executive Branch, Fire Service Branch, and Ministerial Branch. On 18th January, 2005, there was a restructuring exercise in the respondents CISF, in terms of which the new entry level post for future recruitment was the post of 'Constable'. The promotional post for the post of Constable was the post of Head Constable and all recruitment to the posts of Head Constables were stopped thereafter. The newly created promotional post of Head Constable (Driver) was granted a basic pay of Rs.7,510/- and a grade pay of Rs.2,400/- and the same scheme was made applicable in all the aforesaid three branches of CISF. However, the petitioners who continued as Head Constables were continued to be given the basis pay of Rs.6,750/-, whereas all other similarly placed Head Constables (Drivers) in other branches of the respondents CISF were given a higher basic pay of Rs.7,510/-. By way of the present petition, the petitioners are seeking parity with other Head Constables in the respondents CISF.
5. It is contended on behalf of the counsel appearing for the petitioners that the present petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Vinoj V.V. and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12714, the Special Leave Petition (SLP) against which was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 19th July, 2019.
6. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the pay of the petitioners has been correctly fixed in accordance with the Central Civil Services (Revises Pay) Rules, 2008, (CCS Rules) with effect from 1st January, 2006. It is further stated that in terms of O.M. dated 28th September, 2018, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the benefit of minimum entry pay is applicable only in those cases where direct recruits W.P.(C) 4211/2021 Page 2 of 5 have been appointed to the post of Head Constables on or after 1st January, 2006. In the present case no direct recruit has been appointed to the post of Head Constable after 1st January, 2006. Therefore, the benefit of entry pay cannot be extended to the petitioners.
7. In our considered view, the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by Vinoj V.V. supra. The petitioners therein were also similarly placed personnel with the respondents CISF, appointed at Head Constables between the year 1997 and 2005, as are the petitioners herein. The same grounds that are taken by the respondents CISF in the present petition were taken therein The submissions of the respondents CISF was rejected by the Court in Vinoj V.V. supra observing as under:-
"14. In other words, the guiding principle was to be that in the same post having identical duties and responsibilities, there cannot be two different pay scales, one for the promotees and another for direct recruits.
15. In the present case, the result of a restructuring, an anomaly situation has arisen where, as a result, promotee HCs are receiving a basic pay higher than the erstwhile directly recruited HCs. Factually, the Petitioners point out that their juniors directly recruited as constables after 2005 and subsequently granted the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) benefit are getting basic pay of Rs. 7,510/- whereas the Petitioners, who are senior to them, are getting lesser basic pay of Rs.6,750/-. This situation is precisely what has been disapproved of by this Court in its judgment in Somvir Rana (supra) which was subsequently W.P.(C) 4211/2021 Page 3 of 5 affirmed by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the decision in Somvir Rana (supra) has been implemented by the authorities by way of the OM dated 28 September 2018.
16. It is the same principle that informed the decision of this Court in C. P. Chakravarthy (supra) which dealt with a more or less similar case involving the post of HC (Clerk) in the CISF. There again, the differential basic pay of Rs. 7,510/- for one set of HCs and Rs. 6,750/- for another set of HCs was disapproved of by this Court. As noted hereinbefore, the decision in C. P. Chakravarthy (supra) has been accepted by the CISF and implemented.
Xxxxx
19. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court is of the view that maintaining the basic pay of the Petitioners at Rs. 6,750/- is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Respondents are directed to fix the basic pay of the Petitioners at Rs. 7,510/- at par with other HCs with effect from 1 January 2006. The arrears will be paid to the Petitioners not later than eight weeks from today."
8. Despite the fact that the petitioners have placed reliance on the judgment of Vinoj V.V. supra and have contended that the same squarely covers the case of the petitioners, the respondents have nowhere controverted the said position in their counter affidavit. Thus, it is clear that the ratio of Vinoj V.V supra is fully applicable in the present case.
9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to fix the basic pay of the petitioners at Rs.7,510/- at par with other W.P.(C) 4211/2021 Page 4 of 5 Head Constables w.e.f. 1st June, 2006. The arrears will be paid to the petitioners not later than eight weeks from today. CM 24985/2021(for impleadment)
10. This impleadment application has been filed on behalf of the four applicants claiming that they are identically placed as the petitioners and therefore they should be impleaded as the petitioners and be granted the same relief as claimed by the petitioners.
11. The said application is disposed of by directing the respondents to verify whether the applicants are identically placed as the petitioners and if found to be so, be given the same relief as the petitioners. In the event, it is found that the applicants are not identically placed as the petitioners and are therefore not entitled to the relief granted to the petitioners, the respondents would pass a speaking order in that regard and convey the same to the applicants.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J AMIT BANSAL, J AUGUST 09, 2021 A W.P.(C) 4211/2021 Page 5 of 5