Delhi High Court
Ex.Chmech/Hav.Satyavir Singh Malik & ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 6 May, 2013
Author: Gita Mittal
Bench: Gita Mittal, Deepa Sharma
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 2898/2013
% Date of decision: 6th May, 2013
EX.CHMECH/HAV.SATYAVIR SINGH MALIK & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.U.Srivastava, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Bhupender Singh, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
GITA MITTAL, J (Oral)
1. The writ petitioners contend that they are being denied the benefits of higher pay scale of Rs.5000/- to 8000/- w.e.f 01/01/1996 and actual benefit w.e.f. 01.01.2006 at par with their counterparts who are having diploma in Engineering.
2. Learned counsel for both the parties state that the issue in the present case is covered by the order dated 3rd September, 2012 passed by this Court in WP(C)No.5485/2011 titled Chhotelal & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. By the above order, it was held and directed as under:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. It is not in dispute that on the subject of pay fixation with effect from 01.01.1996 and its consequential impact with effect from 01.01.2006, issue pertaining to Overseers and Superintendent Gr.II in BRO is pending consideration before the respondents in light of the decision dated W.P.(C) No. 2898/2013 Page 1 of 2 September 10, 2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Guwahati High Court allowing W.P.(C) No.51/2009 Ghan Shyam Vishwakarma Vs. The Director General, BRO & Ors. which decision was upheld by a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court as per its decision dated March, 18, 2011. The Supreme Court has refused to grant special leave to appeal.
3. Suffice would it be to state that when a principle of law pertaining to payment on pay fixation is decided by a Court on a writ petition filed by an individual but the decision relates to a matter of principal of law to be applied, the said decision has to be implemented in rem, i.e. with respect to all such persons who hold similar posts and not qua the persons who approach the Court.
4. Accordingly, we disposed of the writ petition directed the respondents that whatever decision would be taken by the respondents with respect to the decision of the Gauhati High Court pertaining to the writ petition filed by Ghan Shyam Vishwakarma would be made applicable to all persons holding posts of Overseers and Superintendent Gr.II in BRO.
5. No costs."
2. In view of the above, the petitioners would be entitled to the relief as has been granted in Chhote Lal (Supra) and the present writ petition has to be allowed.
It is ordered accordingly.
(GITA MITTAL) JUDGE (DEEPA SHARMA) JUDGE MAY 06, 2013 ss W.P.(C) No. 2898/2013 Page 2 of 2