* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 18th May, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 3024/2011
BIKRAM SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Arvind Nayar, Mr.Shubhanshu
Singh, Mr.Vikas Kumar and
Ms.Neha Kushwaha, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, ASG with
Mr.Ravinder Agarwal, Mr.Nitish Gupta,
Mr.G.S.Parwanda & Mr.Sandeep Bajaj,
Advocates for R-1 to 3.
Mr.Rajat Arora, Advocate for R-4.
W.P.(C) 3025/2011
AJAY KUMAR AHIRWAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Arvind Nayar, Mr.Shubhanshu
Singh, Mr.Vikas Kumar and
Ms.Neha Kushwaha, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, ASG with
Mr.Ravinder Agarwal, Mr.Nitish Gupta,
Mr.G.S.Parwanda & Mr.Sandeep Bajaj,
Advocates for R-1 & 2.
Ms.Rachana Joshi Issar, Advocate for
R-3 & 4.
W.P.(C) 3031/2011
PELLETI HEMANTH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Arvind Nayar, Mr.Shubhanshu
Singh, Mr.Vikas Kumar and
Ms.Neha Kushwaha, Advocates.
versus
W.P.(C) No.3024/2011 & connected matters Page 1 of 19
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, ASG with
Mr.Ravinder Agarwal, Mr.Nitish Gupta,
Mr.G.S.Parwanda & Mr.Sandeep Bajaj,
Advocates for R-1 & 2.
Mr.Rajat Arora, Advocate for R-3 & 4.
W.P.(C) 3092/2011
SATISH K. JHA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Arvind Nayar, Mr.Shubhanshu
Singh, Mr.Vikas Kumar and
Ms.Neha Kushwaha, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, ASG with
Mr.Ravinder Agarwal, Mr.Nitish Gupta,
Mr.G.S.Parwanda & Mr.Sandeep Bajaj,
Advocates for R-1 & 2.
Ms.Rachana Joshi Issar, Advocate for
R-3 & 4.
W.P.(C) 3203/2011
RAJIV RANJAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Arvind Nayar, Mr.Shubhanshu
Singh, Mr.Vikas Kumar and
Ms.Neha Kushwaha, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, ASG with
Mr.Ravinder Agarwal, Mr.Nitish Gupta,
Mr.G.S.Parwanda & Mr.Sandeep Bajaj,
Advocates for R-1 to 3.
Mr.S.S.Lingwal, Advocate for R-4 & 5.
W.P.(C) No.3024/2011 & connected matters Page 2 of 19
W.P.(C) 3204/2011
SUDARSAN MAHARANA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Arvind Nayar, Mr.Shubhanshu
Singh, Mr.Vikas Kumar and
Ms.Neha Kushwaha, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, ASG with
Mr.Ravinder Agarwal, Mr.Nitish Gupta,
Mr.G.S.Parwanda & Mr.Sandeep Bajaj,
Advocates for R-1 to 3.
Mr.Rajat Arora, Advocate for R-4 & 5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. On 1.11.2010 Punjab & Sind Bank invited
applications from eligible candidates for selection and
appointment as Specialist Officer- JMG-Scale 1, expressly
stating that the post was in the scale of pay `14500-`25700.
Seeking permission to compete at the competitive
examination to be conducted by Punjab & Sind Bank, Bikram
Singh the writ petitioner of WP(C) No.3024/2011 applied
through the Unit Commandant for his application to be sent
to the bank and the Unit Commandant forwarded the same
to the bank. It be noted that Bikram Singh had joined
W.P.(C) No.3024/2011 & connected matters Page 3 of 19
service as an Airman on 9.5.2003 and by 9.5.2010 had
rendered 7 years‟ service under the Air Force.
2. In September 2010, Bank of Maharashtra invited
applications from eligible candidates for selection and
appointment as a Probationary Officer and since neither
Satish Kumar Jha the writ petitioner of WP(C) No.3092/2011
nor Ajay Kumar Ahirwar the writ petitioner of WP(C)
No.3025/2011 have disclosed what was the scale of pay
notified by the bank for the post in question and have also
not filed the Public Notice issued by the bank while inviting
applications from the eligible candidates, we do not know
the scale of pay of the post in question. The two applied
through the Unit Commandant for their applications to be
sent to the bank and the Unit Commandant forwarded the
same to the bank and relevant would it be to note that by
the time they submitted their applications to the Unit
Commandant, the two had rendered 7 years‟ service under
the Indian Air Force.
3. Rajiv Ranjan the writ petitioner of WP(C)
No.3203/2011 got his application forwarded in August 2010
through his Unit Commandant to the United Bank of India
after he had served the Indian Air Force for 7 years. The
post he had applied for was that of a Probationary Officer in
the United Bank of India in the pay-scale `14,500-`25,700.
4. The remaining writ petitioners i.e. Sudarsan
Maharana and Pelleti Hemanth Kumar, after rendering 7
years‟ service under the Indian Air Force got forwarded
through the Unit Commandant their applications for being
W.P.(C) No.3024/2011 & connected matters Page 4 of 19
appointed as a Probationary Officer with Bank of India for
the post of Probationary Officer in the pay-scale `14500-
`25700 and the date on which they so applied was in the
month of August 2010.
5. It is thus not in dispute that the 6 writ petitioners
had got their applications forwarded through the
Commandant of their respective Unit to the respective
banks in the months of August, September and November
2010.
6. The grievance of the writ petitioners is to the Air
Force Authorities not granting the necessary No Objection to
them thereby relieving them to join the respective bank
inasmuch as the writ petitioners have successfully cleared
the selection process initiated by the respective banks to
whom the writ petitioners had applied for employment.
7. Since the last date by which the writ petitioners
had to join the respective bank had either lapsed or was
likely to lapse in the next 4 or 5 days and since respective
counsel for the banks told the Court that they cannot keep a
post vacant for the writ petitioners inasmuch as whether
joining as a Probationary Officer or as Specialist Officer-JMG,
all recruited persons have to undergo training during the
period of probation and upon successful completion of
training are permanently absorbed in the banks and that
training is imparted to a group with specialized teachers in
the field imparting training in banking and that the banks
would not be in a position to give training to individuals if
the writ petitioners were to join later and that the training
W.P.(C) No.3024/2011 & connected matters Page 5 of 19
was to commence in the month of June 2011, arguments
were heard in the writ petitions without awaiting a counter
affidavit inasmuch as the facts were not in dispute and thus
on facts no response was required. A legal issue arose for
consideration and for which the necessary documents were
filed by the writ petitioners. Thus, we have heard
arguments on 16.5.2011 and had indicated in the order of
said date that judgment would be pronounced on 18.5.2011.
8. Pertaining to permission to be granted to Airman
to apply for civil posts/services under the Central and the
State Governments and Public Sector Undertakings, vide Air
Force Order No.14/2008 issued on 19.9.2008, extensive
guidelines have been issued and undisputably the case of
the petitioners with respect to the relief sought has to be
adjudicated in terms of the said Air Force Order.
9. Relief sought by the writ petitioners is that a
mandamus be issued to the Air Force Authorities to
forthwith issue No Objection certificate to them to join the
respective bank which has issued a letter of offer to the
petitioners and further to relieve the petitioners for so
joining.
10. Para 1 of the Air Force Order No.14/2008 reads
as under:-
“Airman/NCs(E), who have completed seven
years of service from the date of enrollment, are
permitted to apply for civil posts under
Central/State Government and Public Sector
Undertakings including Para-Military Forces. Non-
Govt organizations (NGOs)/Trusts, even if fundedW.P.(C) No.3024/2011 & connected matters Page 6 of 19
by the Government shall not be covered in the
permissible category of posts. The categories of
posts, corresponding length of service and
eligibility are to be determined as given below.
Category Length of Permissible Categories of civil
Service posts
a I 7 yrs (A) Group „A‟ or equivalent
posts (maximum of the pay
scale not less than `13500,
as revised from time to time)
(B) Group „B‟ or equivalent
posts (maximum of the pay
scale not less than `9000 but
less than `13500, as revised
from time to time)
B II 15 yrs Category- I above and any
other post except
temporary/contractual post
and Private Sector.
c III 18 years Category I, II above and any
(having other post in Private Sector
submitted including
unwillingness temporary/contractual posts
or denied or engagement on
extension of deputation.
engagement)
11. Notwithstanding the imperfect use of language
under the caption „PERMISSIBLE CATEGORIES OF CIVIL
POSTS‟ and to highlight the imperfection we may only state
that in para (b) pertaining to Category-I one could have
simply written: Group „B‟ or equivalent posts having
minimum pay of `9,000/- and maximum `13,500/- rather
than to say: in the pay-scale not less than `9,000/- but less
than `13,500/-. Be that as it may, relevant would it be toW.P.(C) No.3024/2011 & connected matters Page 7 of 19
state that as per para 1 it stands stipulated that minimum 7
years service must be rendered before permission can be
granted to an Airman to apply for and proceed to join upon
selection, a Group „A‟ or a Group „B‟ or an equivalent post.
We are not concerned with Category-II and Category-III and
thus we do not expand on said categories.
12. Then comes into play para 2 of Air Force Order
No.14/2008, which reads as under:-
“2. All applications for above categories of
posts will be directly forwarded to the
prospective employers by the units after
verifying the eligibility including criticality of
manpower. Application of airmen belonging to
critical trades shall be rejected at unit level.
However, the condition of criticality will not be
applicable to the applicants of Category IA and III
above, in whose case the applications will be
forwarded despite criticality in their trades. The
criticality of trades will be updated by Air HQ
twice a year, in June and December and would
be intimated to Stns/Units through their
respective Command HQs. Airmen who are on
deputation to ARC are also eligible to apply for
civil posts as per Para 1 above and their
applications to be processed through PHS C/O
AFCAO, where unit copy of service documents of
ARC deputationists are held. Forwarding of
applications shall not be construed as
acceptance to grant NOC, which shall be issued
as per the procedure laid down in subsequent
paras of this AFO.”
13. Relevant would it be to highlight that the last
sentence of para 2 of the Air Force Order makes it clear that
forwarding of applications shall not be construed as
acceptance to grant NOC, which shall be issued as per the
procedure laid down in subsequent paras of this AFO.
W.P.(C) No.3024/2011 & connected matters Page 8 of 19
14. Paragraph 7 of the Air Force Order becomes
relevant in view of the last sentence of paragraph 2 above
and it stipulates as under:-
“7. Application for NOC is to be submitted by
the individual after receiving call letter for the
interview/verification of documents or after the
result of written test where selection is based on
success in written test only. However, in all
cases NOC is to be obtained by the individual
invariably before submitting application for
discharge on being selected for the post.”
15. Now the problem. If the person concerned seeks
permission to join an organization on a civil post in Group
„A‟ or equivalent, the requirement is that the maximum of
the pay-scale has not to be less than `13,500/- as revised
from time to time and for this post, as per paragraph 2 of
the AFO, criticality in the trade has not to be considered. If
however, the post is in Group „B‟, criticality in the trade
would be a criteria for not releasing the person concerned.
In other words there is no absolute right in an Air Force
Personnel to proceed to a Group „B‟ or equivalent post
whereas such absolute right is available qua a Group „A‟
post, upon the condition of having rendered 7 years service.
The fact on which the problem has arisen in the instant writ
petitions is the scale of pay on which the petitioners seek to
join i.e. whether the post they are seeking to join is
equivalent to Group „A‟ or is it equivalent to Group „B‟.
16. Save and except for one post where the scale of
pay has not been disclosed by the writ petitioner thereof, all
others seek to join a bank in the pay-scale `14,500-`25,700.
Para 1 of the Air Force Order, refers to Group „A‟ or
W.P.(C) No.3024/2011 & connected matters Page 9 of 19
equivalent post as a post where the maximum of the pay-
scale is not less than `13,500/- and uses the further
expression: „As revised from time to time‟. The petitioner‟s
claim that the posts to which they proceed has the
maximum in the scale, the sum of `25700/- and it is
apparent that the said amount is not less than `13500/- and
thus they claim an absolute right to be released from
service. The Air Force Authorities would allege that when
AFO 14/2008 was issued on 19.9.2008, the Government of
India circular in vogue, classifying posts in Group „A‟, „B‟, „C‟
and „D‟, stipulated as under:-
S.No. Description of Posts Classification
1. A Central Civil Post carrying a pay Group „A‟
or a scale of pay with a maximum
of not less than `13500.
2. A Central Civil Post carrying a pay Group „B‟
or a scale of pay with a maximum
of not less than `9000 but less than
`13500.
3. A Central Civil Post carrying a pay Group „C‟
or a scale of pay with a maximum
of over `4000 but less than `9000.
4. A Central Civil Post carrying a pay Group „D‟
or a scale of pay with the maximum
of which is `4000 or less.
17. It was only on 9.4.2009 that the Government of
India issued a revised order with respect to classification of
posts, stipulating as under:-
Sl.No. Description of Posts Classification
of posts
1 (a) A Central Civil post in Cabinet
Secretary‟s scale (`90000-fixed), Apex
Scale (`80000-fixed) and Higher
W.P.(C) No.3024/2011 & connected matters Page 10 of 19
Administrative Grade plus scale
(`75500-80000); and
(b) A Central Civil post carrying the Group „A‟
following grade pays:-
`12000, `10000, `8900 and `8700 in
the scale of pay of `37400-67000 in
Pay-Band-4, and `7600, `6600 and
`5400 in the scale of pay of `15600-
39100 in Pay-Band-3.
2. A Central Civil post carrying the Group „B‟
following grade pays:-
`5400, `4800, `4600 and `4200 in the
scale of pay of `9300-34800 in Pay-
Band-2.
3. A Central Civil post carrying the Group „C‟
following grade pays:-
`2800, `2400, `2000, `1900 and `1800
in the scale of pay of `5200-20200 in
Pay-Band-1.
4. A Central Civil post carrying the Group „D‟
following grade pays:- (till the posts
`1300, `1400, `1600, `1650 in the are
scale of pay of `4440-7440 in 1S Scale upgraded)
18. The Air Force Authorities would contend that
when AFO 14/2008 was promulgated on 14.9.2008 it had
referred to the classification of posts with reference to the
Government of India classification then in vogue. It be
highlighted that with the acceptance and implementation of
the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations, with
effect from 1.1.2006, the pay-scales were revised into pay-
bands and the actual acceptance and implementation took
place around October 2009 with retrospective effect and
this is the reason why when AFO 14/2008 was issued it
referred to the scales with reference to the previous scales
W.P.(C) No.3024/2011 & connected matters Page 11 of 19
and further this is the reason why it was made clear that the
scale mentioned would be as revised from time to time.
19. Now, one thing is clear. To be entitled to the
benefit of the post in Category-I(A) of AFO 14/2008, the
essential requirement has to be that the post has to be in a
pay-scale maximum of which is not less than `13,500 as
revised from time to time, meaning thereby the
corresponding figure/sum as per the Government of India
Office Order dated 9.4.2009 would have to be looked into.
20. It was urged by learned counsel for the petitioner
that we have no material wherefrom it can be gathered that
the post to which the petitioners had applied, as per the
advertisement issued, disclosed the pre-revised or the
revised scales of pay. We agree. Unfortunately, learned
counsel for the banks could throw no light. But, all learned
counsel were in agreement that in terms of industry level
settlement dated 27.4.2010 where all public sector banks
and the unions of the employees had hammered out a
settlement, pay-scales had to be revised as per the
settlement.
21. Thus, one issue of law admittedly gets settled,
being that, reference in the pay-scale being not less than
`13,500 pertaining to Group „A‟ post in AFO 14/2008 is with
reference to the pay-scale prior to the implementation of
the 6th Central Pay Commission‟s recommendations and the
corresponding sum would have to be worked out with
reference to the latest Office Memorandum issued by the
Government on the subject and the relevant content
whereof has been extracted by us in para 17 above.
W.P.(C) No.3024/2011 & connected matters Page 12 of 19
22. We may note that on 22.5.2009 the Air
Headquarters had issued a clarificatory order in harmony
with what we have observed herein above.
23. Thus, the only relief which the petitioners can
obtain is requiring a direction to be issued to the respective
bank to forthwith convey to the Air Force Authorities
whether the pay-scale referred to in the advertisements
issued by the respective bank and pursuant whereto
petitioners applied were the pre-revised or the pay-scales
after revision, and if the pay-scales were pre-revised, the
corresponding scale post-revision. Thereupon, Air Force
Authorities would do the needful and if the information
provided is that the scales of pay were pre-revised, by
taking into consideration the revised scales of pay, if the
posts are a Group „A‟ post in the pay-scale maximum of
which is not less than the sum equivalent to `13,500/-, post
revision, to grant the necessary No Objection to the
petitioners without considering the criticality of the trade;
and if the information provided by the bank is that the
advertisements referred to the revised scale of pay, issue of
criticality would be considered and if not found critical to
the trade in which the respective petitioner is working, to
issue the necessary No Objection Certificate.
24. But before we issue the formal directions, we
deal with a four-fold submission urged by Sh.Arvind Nayar,
learned counsel for the writ petitioners. With reference to a
decision dated 2.2.2011 authored by one of us, namely
Pradeep Nandrajog, J., deciding a batch of writ petitions,
lead matter being Sgt.Gedela Yugankar vs. UOI & Ors.
W.P.(C) No.3024/2011 & connected matters Page 13 of 19
WP(C) No.722/2010, learned counsel urged that considering
AFO 14/2008, on the principle of legitimate expectation,
relief was granted to the writ petitioners therein and thus
counsel claims parity on the principle of legitimate
expectation.
25. The argument is mis-founded inasmuch as
legitimate expectation of the writ petitioners in the batch of
writ petitions decided vide decision dated 2.2.2011 was
considered in light of the fact that said writ petitioners had
applied when AFO Order No.4/2007 dated 1.6.2007 was in
force. They had cleared the written examinations by the
time AFO No.14/2008 had come into being and we had
noted that the said writ petitioners had commenced the
relay race under the terms of AFO No.4/2007 and had a
legitimate expectation that they would be permitted to
complete the relay race under the said AFO and thus had
held that the revised AFO 14/2008 could not defeat their
legitimate expectation. We have highlighted herein above
that the instant writ petitioners have commenced their relay
race after AFO 14/2008 had come into effect on 19.9.2008
and AFO No.4/2007 had stood superseded.
26. Our observations pertaining to the applications
being forwarded by the Unit Commanders being the
foundation for legitimate expectation in the said decision
have to be read in light of the clarification we have penned
in the preceding paragraph 25 herein above and not as
widely projected by learned counsel, that merely because
the Unit Commandant forwarded the application would give
birth to a legitimate expectation. Second reason to
W.P.(C) No.3024/2011 & connected matters Page 14 of 19
distinguish the said judgment is that the issue raised
therein was when would the date on which 7 years
minimum service required to be rendered has to be
reckoned, which is not the issue in the instant writ petitions.
27. Learned counsel made a second submission and
for which reference was made to two decisions of a Bench
of which one of us, namely Pradeep Nandrajog, J., was a
member of, being the decision dated 3.2.2011 in WP(C)
No.505/2011 Brajesh Jaiswal vs. UOI & Ors. wherein
pertaining to a Probationary Officer in the Central Bank of
India and WP(C) No.7482/2010 Abhishek Kumar Singh Vs.
UOI & Ors. in which another officer who desired to join Life
Insurance Corporation of India, a mandamus was issued to
forthwith issue No Objection Certificates notwithstanding
the applicable pay-scales for said posts were `14,500-
`25,700 i.e. the same as in the instant writ petitions (save
and except one in which applicable pay-scale is not known)
and thus counsel would submit that instant writ petitioners
are entitled to be treated at par, more so for the reason the
department had implemented the mandamus issued qua
said two persons.
28. Sh.A.S.Chandhiok, learned ASG fairly conceded
that the department was at fault by not considering the
material now placed before this Court with respect to the
pay-scales mentioned in AFO 14/2008 with reference to the
pre-revised pay-scales and not drawing attention of this
Court to the Government of India order dated 9.4.2009,
relevant extracts whereof have been noted in para 17
above as also ignoring that the Air Force Authorities had
W.P.(C) No.3024/2011 & connected matters Page 15 of 19
issued a clarificatory order on 2.5.2009 and thus learned
counsel would urge that merely because, in the past, Air
Force Authorities acted under a mistaken notion, would be
no ground to plead estoppel against the Air Force
Authorities.
29. We agree. There cannot be any equality and a
wrong can never be a foundation of a claim for equivalence.
Further, if it is found that in the past a party was acting
under a mistaken belief it cannot give birth to a plea of
estoppel in the mouth of a 3rd party. Estoppel is founded
when a person shows that acting bona fide upon the
representation of the opposite party the person concerned
has altered his position, thereby estopping the party making
the representation from resiling from or withdrawing the
same.
30. The petitioners may feel discriminated against, in
that a few of their colleagues have sneaked past on
equivalent posts, but this would be their feeling and not the
opinion of the law inasmuch as if some persons are wrongly
permitted to sneak across and the error of permitting them
to sneak across is detected, thereby not permitting others
to sneak past, would not amount to discrimination in the
eyes of the law. It is trite said that what a common man
perceives to be wrong need not necessarily be wrong in the
eyes of the law and vice-versa what a common man
perceives to be right need not necessarily right in the eyes
of the law.
31. The third submission urged was that the Ministry
of Finance (Department of Financial Services) had issued a
W.P.(C) No.3024/2011 & connected matters Page 16 of 19
notification on 13.7.2010 notifying the Regional Rural Banks
(Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Employees)
Rules 2010 in which various categories of posts were
notified in the Regional Rural Banks and all posts in Scale I
to Scale V were classified as group „A‟ posts and that the
posts to which petitioners have been issued letters of offer
are in Scale I i.e. are group „A‟ posts.
32. The submission has no legs to stand on for the
reason there may be a different criteria for categorizing
posts in the banking sector vis-à-vis their categorization for
civil services. What is of relevance is para 1 of the Air Force
Order No.14/2008 where group „A‟ post is not the sole
criteria but only such group „A‟ posts the maximum of the
pay scale whereof is not less than `13,500/- as revised from
time to time. Thus, for the purposes of para 1 of the Air
Force Order No.14/2008 the essential condition has to be
that the maximum of the pay scale for the post has to be
not less than `13,500/- as revised from time to time. We
have already discussed hereinabove the effect of the figure
„`13,500/-„ being qualified by the expression „as revised
from time to time‟.
33. Last submission urged that this probably was the
last chance for the petitioners to take a competitive
examination for a Group „A‟ post or an equivalent post and
thus in equity the petitioners be allowed the relief prayed
for.
34. Our sympathies for a cause, cannot determine
the course of the law. If the petitioners are not entitled for
something in law, on our misplaced sympathies, we cannot
W.P.(C) No.3024/2011 & connected matters Page 17 of 19
create a right.
35. Entitlement of the petitioners is governed by a
policy and which we note is AFO 14/2008. It was not
disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that under
the Air Force Act, the petitioners are obliged to serve till the
age of superannuation and that other than AFO 14/2008
they have no enforceable right to seek a premature
discharge from service and since we have interpreted AFO
No.14/2008 by holding that the sum of `13,500/- referred to
in column-3 pertaining to Group „A‟ posts is referable to the
pre-revised pay-scales and the language of the AFO
No.14/2008 itself makes it clear that the reference to said
sum would be as revised from time to time, there is no
escape but to conclude by holding that the only relief which
the petitioners would be entitled to would be to issue a
mandamus as discussed in para 23 above and thus we
dispose of the writ petitions directing the respective banks
in each of the writ petitions to forthwith convey to the Air
Force Authorities whether the pay-scale referred to in the
advertisements issued by the respective bank and pursuant
whereto petitioners applied were the pre-revised or the pay-
scales after revision, and if the pay-scales were pre-revised,
the corresponding scale, post revision. Thereupon, Air
Force Authorities would do the needful and if the
information provided is that the scales of pay were pre-
revised, by taking into consideration the revised scales of
pay, if the posts are a Group „A‟ post in the pay-scale
maximum of which is not less than the sum equivalent to
`13,500/-, post revision, would grant the necessary No
W.P.(C) No.3024/2011 & connected matters Page 18 of 19
Objection to the petitioners without considering the
criticality of the trade and if the information provided by the
bank is that the advertisements referred to the revised
scale of pay, issue of criticality would be considered and if
not found critical to the trade in which the respective
petitioner is working, to issue the necessary No Objection
Certificate. The banks would convey the information to the
Chief of the Air Staff at Air Headquarters New Delhi within a
period of 3 days and within 4 days thereafter the Chief of
the Air Staff would convey the further decision to the
petitioners and needless to state reasons would be
indicated therein. If any petitioner is found eligible to be
appointed the necessary discharge certificate would be
issued within further 1 week thereof and in such
circumstance time shall be suitably extended by the bank
concerned to enable the said petitioner to join under the
bank concerned by taking into account the time fixed by us
hereinbefore.
36. No costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(INDERMEET KAUR)
JUDGE
May 18, 2011
dk
W.P.(C) No.3024/2011 & connected matters Page 19 of 19
