$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 19th September, 2011
+ WP(C) 1156/2011
PRATAP SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Rekha Palli, Ms.Punam Singh and
Ms.Amrita Prakash, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Inderjeet Sindhu, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
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. (Oral)
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that of the
various grounds urged in the writ petition, arguments are
restricted to the grounds with respect to the anomaly which has
been highlighted as per para 9(c)(iv) of the writ petition. The
anomaly highlighted reads as under:-
“(iv) If the stand taken by the respondent No.6 is held
to be correct on its face value, albeit the same does
not seem to be correct, then the petitioner would be
WP(C) 1156/2011 Page 1 of 6
losing approximately `1300/- per month vis-à-vis an
officer who was one year junior to him. The Junior
Officer who had stagnated at the maximum of his pay
scale just for one year and had not earned stagnation
increment, will get the benefit of the instructions cited
above and be allowed one increment in the new pay
scale as on 01.01.2006, raising his salary by about
`1800/- whereas the petitioner will not get this
increment and thus his salary would be lesser to the
officer who is one year junior to him. To illustrate this
point further it is submitted that for example, if the
petitioner had stagnated only for one year at the
maximum of his old pay scale, he would have been
allowed one increment on 01.01.2006, as per this rule,
raising his gross salary approximately by `1800/-.
Since the petitioner earned the stagnation increment
after having stagnated for 2 years at the maximum of
his old pay scale, he got a rise of approximately `500/-
but would lose `1800/- per month as he cannot get the
benefit of Rule 10 as per the version of respondents
No.6 and 1. The petitioner would, thus, be getting
approximately `1300 lesser vis-à-vis an officer who
was one year junior to him. The intention of the
Government can never be to cause loss to a senior
person who has stagnated at the maximum of his old
pay scale for over two years.”
2. Relevant facts to be noted are that working as 2-IC
under CRPF, which is equivalent to the post of a Commandant in
CISF, petitioner applied to proceed on deputation under CISF as
AIG (Legal and Regulation). Being selected, he assumed charge
on 29.3.1996.
3. While on deputation, petitioner earned promotion to
the post of Commandant in CRPF in May 1997 which is
equivalent to the post of Senior Commandant in CISF. Petitioner
was ultimately absorbed in CISF.
WP(C) 1156/2011 Page 2 of 6
4. Placed in the pay-scale `14300-400-18300, while on
deputation, petitioner reached the maximum in the pay-scale
i.e. `18,300/- with effect from 1.5.2003.
5. Stagnating for 2 years on the same pay-scale and as
per policy, petitioner was granted first stagnation increment on
1.5.2005 and thus from said date started receiving salary (basic)
in sum of `18,700/-.
6. With the implementation of the 6th Central Pay
Commission’s recommendations, petitioner was placed in the
pay-band of `37,400 – `67,000 + grade-pay `8,700. Issue of
pay-fixation of the petitioner was pending when he
superannuated from service on 30.11.2008 but we note that his
salary was fixed at `43,390/- and then increased by stepping up
the same by one scale to `44,900/- as on 1.1.2006. The
department, with reference to Rule 10 of the CCS Revised Pay
Rules, implementing the proviso thereto gave the increment in
the revised pay-structure to the petitioner with effect from
1.1.2006.
7. To understand what happened, with effect from
1.5.2005, basic-pay of the petitioner in the grade-pay `37,400-
`67,000 which was fixed at `43,390 came to be increased to
`44,900/- as on 1.1.2006, and needless to state the grade-pay
continued to be `8,700.
8. Petitioner was happy till the respondent took a
unilateral action to withdrawn the increment given with effect
from 1.1.2006 envisaged by CCS (Revised Pension) Rules.
9. Rule 10 of the CCS (Revised Pension) Rules read as
WP(C) 1156/2011 Page 3 of 6
under:-
“10. Date of next increment in the revised pay
structure – There will be a uniform date of annual
increment, viz. 1st July of every year. Employees
completing 6 months and above in the revised pay
structure as on 1st of July will be eligible to be granted
the increment. The first increment after fixation of
pay on 1.1.2006 in the revised pay structure will be
granted on 1.7.2006 for those employees for whom
the date of next increment was between 1 st July, 2006
to 1st January, 2007.
Provided that in the case of persons who had been
drawing maximum of the existing scale for more than
a year as on the 1st day of January, 2006, the next
increment in the revised pay structure shall be allowed
on the 1st day of January, 2006. Thereafter, the
provision of Rule 10 would apply.
Provided that in cases where an employee reaches the
maximum of his pay band, shall be placed in the next
higher pay band after one year of reaching such a
maximum. At the time of placement in the higher pay
band, benefit of one increment will be provided.
Thereafter, he will continue to move in the higher pay
band till his pay in the pay band reaches the
maximum of PB-4, after which no further increments
will be granted.”
10. Of the various contentions urged, one which is
pressed into service is as noted herein above and simply put,
what the petitioner says is that if he is entitled to one stagnation
increment and not two he must be granted the one in terms of
the CCS (Revised Pension) Rules and for which he highlights the
effect of the illustration given by him which shows that a person
who had stagnated only for one year would have been allowed
WP(C) 1156/2011 Page 4 of 6
one increment benefit as on 1.1.2006 on the scale as per the
revised pay band.
11. The illustration given by the petitioner brings out
that a person who stagnates for only one year would get a
better salary and hence a better pension with effect from
1.1.2006 i.e. highlights the anomaly where one step up is
given prior to 1.1.2006 and where one step up is given with
effect from 1.1.2006.
12. Thus, we declare that the petitioner who would
be entitled to one step up increment would be accorded the
benefit with respect to the increment payable in the pay-
band `37,400 – `67,000 and not the pre-revised pay-scale.
13. On the issue of effecting recoveries against the
petitioner we would highlight that what ever benefits were
received by the petitioner were not due to the petitioner
making any misrepresentation or playing a fraud. It was a
bona-fide error committed by the respondents.
14. Noting that the petitioner spent the money which
was given to him thinking that he was rightfully entitled
thereto and the fact that the petitioner has since
superannuated, we bring the curtains down by prohibiting
any recoveries to be effected from the pension being paid
to the petitioner and direct that future pension would be
paid by withdrawing the one step up increment granted to
the petitioner on 1.5.2005 and instead, one step up
WP(C) 1156/2011 Page 5 of 6
increment would be granted with effect from 1.1.2006 as
per pay-band `37,400 – `67,000 in terms of the proviso to
Rule 10 of the CCS (Revised Pension) Rules.
15. No costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
SUNIL GAUR, J.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2011
dk
WP(C) 1156/2011 Page 6 of 6