Narendra Kumar & Others v. Union of India & Others

GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)

¶1The petitioners, who are the promotee officers, are working either as Overseers or as Superintendents with the Border Road Organization. This petition has been filed by the petitioners praying to pay salary in same pay scale/pay band with grade pay as was paid to Ghan Shyam Vishwakarma pursuant to the decision passed by the Gauhati High Court (Aizawl Bench) in W.P.(C)No.51/2009.

¶2The Border Road Organization implemented the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission with effect from January 1, 1996 and started paying a higher salary to

Overseers and Superintendents BR Grade-II who were direct recruits and possessed either a diploma or a degree in the applicable field i.e. Electrical or Mechanical; depending upon the stream. This was denied to promotee Officers who joined as Masons, Carpenters etc. and earned promotion. The reason for denying the parity in pay-scale was by drawing a distinction between Officers holding a diploma or a degree and those not holding a diploma or a degree. This action was held to be discriminatory and was quashed. Mandamus was issued that same scale of pay benefit, as recommended by the Pay Commissions, be accorded to for the reason the Pay Commissions did not draw any such distinction while making their recommendations.

¶3The decision of the Aizawl Bench of the Gauhati High Court was unsuccessfully challenged before the Supreme Court. Qua Ghan Shyam Vishwakarma, the same has been implemented as also many more who filed similar petitions.

¶4Despite repeated directions, the respondents are granting benefits only to such persons who approached the court which is legally impermissible.

¶5The decision in the instant case related to application of policy decision. This court in several orders including the order dated 17th December, 2012 passed in WP(C)No.5040/2012, Prabhdial Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. has specifically directed that the decision has to be implemented in rem.

¶6We accordingly allow this writ petition directing that the

petitioners working either as Overseer or as a Superintendent with the Border Road Organization be accorded the benefit of recommendations made by the 5th and 6th Central Pay Commissions as was accorded to, to Ghan Shyam Vishwakarma.

¶7Arrears would be disbursed within a period of 12 weeks from today.

¶8No costs.

(GITA MITTAL) JUDGE

(DEEPA SHARMA) JUDGE

JULY 31, 2013 mk

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.3820/2013 % Date of decision: 31st July, 2013 NARENDRA KUMAR & OTHERS ..... Petitioners Through : Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Satya Saharawat, Adv. for Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA