Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 663 (DEL)

P. S. Rana throug v. UOI

2014-02-25

JAYANT NATH, PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

body2014
ORDER 1. The appeal has reached for hearing today. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that either hearing be deferred or an oral application moved by him be made a part of the record. Handing over to us a photocopy of a death certificate No. 4310, learned Counsel points out that as evidenced therein the petitioner, Pratap Singh Rana son of Ram Jila, died on February 1, 2014. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that he has been contacted by the wife of the deceased i.e. Smt. Mishri Devi, his three married daughters, namely, Prem Lata, Sneh Lata and Geeta and a son, namely, Puran Singh Rana requesting that he should file an application to bring them on record as the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner. 3. Learned Counsel has handed over in Court a Vakalatnama in his favour executed by the wife, three daughters and the son of the deceased. 4. An amended memo of parties has been handed over in Court today. 5. We take on record amended memo of parties, photocopies of the death certificate and the Vakalatnama. The three documents be placed in the appropriate file. 6. The wife, three daughters and the son are impleaded as the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner. W.P.(C) 4653/2002 7. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The issue is short. 8. Before the recommendations of the 3rd Central Pay Commission upon being accepted by the Government with or without modifications draftsmen in various departments of the Government such as CPWD, GREF, etc. were placed in two pay scales: (i) Rs. 205-280/-; and (ii) Rs. 180-380/-. 9. The 3rd Central Pay Commissioner recommended the replacement pay scale Rs. 425-700/-. to the pay scale Rs. 180-380/-. It recommended that based upon seniority, 50% of the draftsmen in the pay scale Rs. 205-280/- be placed in the pay scale Rs. 425-700/- and the remaining 50% in the pay scale Rs. 330-560/-. 10. The draftsmen who were in the pay scale Rs. 205-280/- questioned the decision to grant 50% replacement pay scale Rs. 425-700/- and the remaining 50% replacement pay scale Rs. 330-560/-. They pleaded that all of them were doing similar or identical work involving same nature of duties; qualitatively and quantitatively. 11. In the decision reported as 1985(3) SLR 39 , P. Savita & Ors. v. UOI & Ors. 205-280/- questioned the decision to grant 50% replacement pay scale Rs. 425-700/- and the remaining 50% replacement pay scale Rs. 330-560/-. They pleaded that all of them were doing similar or identical work involving same nature of duties; qualitatively and quantitatively. 11. In the decision reported as 1985(3) SLR 39 , P. Savita & Ors. v. UOI & Ors. the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the High Court which recognised that people in the same pre-revised pay scale doing identical work could be placed in two different replacement pay scales. The Supreme Court held that the view taken by the High Court was wrong. The Supreme Court held that draftsmen in the pay scale Rs. 205-280/- were proved to be performing identical work and thus 50% of them could not be placed in the lower pay scale Rs. 330-560/-. The Supreme Court held that all draftsmen in the pre-revised pay scale Rs. 205-280/- were required to be placed in the pay scale Rs. 425-700/-. 12. The decision was pronounced by the Supreme Court on May 1, 1985. The petitioners of the proceedings before the Supreme Court were draftsmen in the Ministry of Defence production. 13. Taking the decision of the Supreme Court to its logical conclusion, the Ministry of Finance took a decision, which resulted in the issuance of an Office Memorandum dated September 11, 1987. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in P. Savita's case (supra), it was held that all draftsmen in the pre-revised pay scale Rs. 205-280/- shall be placed in the replacement pay scale Rs. 425-700. In other words apart from 50% draftsmen in the erstwhile pay scale Rs. 205-280/- who were placed in the replacement pay scale Rs. 425-700/-, the remaining 50% who were given the pay scale of Rs. 330-560/- were also placed in the pay scale Rs. 425-700/- 14. Insofar as the order dated September 11, 1987 so directs, the petitioner has no grievance inasmuch as while implementing the order he too was placed in the pay scale Rs. 425-700/- with effect from the date when the recommendations of the 3rd Pay Commission were implemented i.e. January 1, 1973. 15. The grievance would be to the concluding line of paragraph 3 of the Office Memorandum dated September 11, 1987 wherein it has been held that the benefit of the replacement pay scale of Rs. 425-700/- with effect from the date when the recommendations of the 3rd Pay Commission were implemented i.e. January 1, 1973. 15. The grievance would be to the concluding line of paragraph 3 of the Office Memorandum dated September 11, 1987 wherein it has been held that the benefit of the replacement pay scale of Rs. 425-700/- shall be given notionally from January 1, 1973 and actually from September 1, 1987. 16. In other words, the position would be that placing the petitioner in the revised pay scale Rs. 425-700/- with effect from January 1, 1973 annual increment benefit was granted albeit notionally. Only with effect from September 1, 1987 taking into the notional increments earned actual disbursement was effected. 17. As per the petitioner there is no rationale to restrict the benefit post January 1, 1973 till September 1, 1987 to a notional basis benefit. 18. In the counter affidavit filed it is stated that while implementing the office order in question notional benefit was restricted till the year 1983 and that with effect from November 1, 1983, disbursement was made on actual basis. 19. Now, what is the reason to restrict grant of benefit on notional basis as per the order dated September 11, 1987 has not been explained. Similarly, what is the rationale to restrict the benefit notionally till November 1, 1983 as pleaded in the counter affidavit has not been explained. 20. The decision of the Supreme Court in P. Savita's case (supra) requires benefit of replacement pay scale to be granted with effect from the date when the recommendations of the 3rd Central Pay Commission were implemented. 21. Finding no defence learned Counsel for the respondent pleads that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on account of delay and laches. Learned Counsel urges that if the petitioner had a grievance to the part of the order dated September 11, 1987 which restricts benefit till the order 1987 on notional basis, the writ petition filed in the year 2002 is liable to be dismissed. 22. On the subject of delay and laches, we find that the petitioner had made representations which were not even acknowledged. 22. On the subject of delay and laches, we find that the petitioner had made representations which were not even acknowledged. He approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court by way of W.P.(C) No. 243/1997 which was admitted for hearing but finally prayer made was turned down on April 27, 2002, holding that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana lacks territorial jurisdiction. 23. It was in said circumstances that the petitioner approached this Court. 24. We dispose of the writ petition directing that the notional benefit of increments granted to the petitioner after placing him in the replacement pay scale Rs. 425-700/- with effect from January 1, 1973 be converted into a practical reality. We direct that the petitioner would be entitled to the monitory benefits which enure to him after he was placed in the pay scale Rs. 425-700/- with effect from January 1, 1973. 25. Since petitioner is dead, we direct that the arrears be paid to his wife and the disbursement thereof would be treated as enduring to the benefit of the children as well. Needful shall be done within 12 weeks from receipt of certified copy of this decision failing which the arrears shall be paid with 8% interest per annum reckoned from 12 weeks from today till when payment is made. No costs.