Full Judgment Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on : October 03, 2007
Judgment delivered on : October 29, 2007
W.P. (C) No. 3833 /2007
# Union of India & Ors ...Petitioner
! Through: Mr. H.K. Gangwani, Advocate
versus
$ Shri Rakesh Pandey & Anr. ...Respondent
^ Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha, Advocate
*CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
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?
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
:
1. The Union of India impugns the order passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short 'the
Tribunal') passed in O.A.No.846/2006, filed by the respondents,
whereby the Tribunal allowed their original application filed under
Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act. The Tribunal, inter-
alia, directed the petitioner herein to refix the pay of the
W.P. (C) No. 3833/2007 Page No. 1 of 3
respondents by counting the increments earned by them while
working with temporary status, within a period of two months.
2. The respondents were initially appointed as a casual workers
sometime in year 1990-91. They were granted temporary status
in October 1997. Respondent No.1 & 2 were thereafter appointed
to regular posts of Peon and Farash with effect from 22.8.2006
and 2.3.2006 respectively. During the period that they were
holding temporary status, the respondents earned yearly
increments in the pay scale of Rs.750-940 (pre-revised) w.e.f. the
dates of their being given temporary status. However when they
were regularised in service, the petitioner sought to fix their pay
at the minimum stage of the pay scale of Rs.2,550-3200 i.e. at
Rs.2,550/- per month w.e.f. from their respective dates of
regularisation thereby taking away the annual increments earned
by them over a period of nine years in temporary capacity. This
was challenged by the respondents before the Tribunal in the
aforesaid O.A.
3. The Tribunal relying on its earlier decisions in M.K.Rajan &
Ors, V. Union of India in O.A. 606/2001 decided on 12.10.2001,
in respect of which the special leave petition, being SLP (Civil
No.11667/02) was dismissed on 4.8.2003, & Nathu Singh &
Ors. V. Union of India & Ors , 2002(1) ATJ8 and Giriraj
W.P. (C) No. 3833/2007 Page No. 2 of 3
Sharma v. UOI & Ors, O.A. No.65 of 2005, decided on 2.9.2005
allowed the aforesaid O.A.
4. Our attention has been drawn to two orders of this Court in
W.P(C)11884/2005, UOI v. Kailash Chand & Ors., and in W.P.
(C) No.2317/2002, UOI v. Nathu Singh & Ors., whereby similar
writ petitions filed by the UOI have been dismissed by this Court.
While dismissing the writ petitions, the Division Bench of this
Court took note of the fact that the Kerala High Court had taken a
similar view as taken by the Tribunal in those cases, and the
Supreme Court had also dismissed the special leave petition
against the judgment of the Kerala High Court. In fact the
judgment of the Kerala High Court has even been implemented.
5. Following the aforesaid decisions of this Court, we find no
merit in this petition and dismiss the same.
VIPIN SANGHI
JUDGE
A.K. SIKRI
JUDGE
October 29, 2007
P.K. BABBAR
W.P. (C) No. 3833/2007 Page No. 3 of 3
Judgment reserved on : October 03, 2007
Judgment delivered on : October 29, 2007
W.P. (C) No. 3833 /2007
# Union of India & Ors ...Petitioner
! Through: Mr. H.K. Gangwani, Advocate
versus
$ Shri Rakesh Pandey & Anr. ...Respondent
^ Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha, Advocate
*CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
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?
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
:
1. The Union of India impugns the order passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short 'the
Tribunal') passed in O.A.No.846/2006, filed by the respondents,
whereby the Tribunal allowed their original application filed under
Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act. The Tribunal, inter-
alia, directed the petitioner herein to refix the pay of the
W.P. (C) No. 3833/2007 Page No. 1 of 3
respondents by counting the increments earned by them while
working with temporary status, within a period of two months.
2. The respondents were initially appointed as a casual workers
sometime in year 1990-91. They were granted temporary status
in October 1997. Respondent No.1 & 2 were thereafter appointed
to regular posts of Peon and Farash with effect from 22.8.2006
and 2.3.2006 respectively. During the period that they were
holding temporary status, the respondents earned yearly
increments in the pay scale of Rs.750-940 (pre-revised) w.e.f. the
dates of their being given temporary status. However when they
were regularised in service, the petitioner sought to fix their pay
at the minimum stage of the pay scale of Rs.2,550-3200 i.e. at
Rs.2,550/- per month w.e.f. from their respective dates of
regularisation thereby taking away the annual increments earned
by them over a period of nine years in temporary capacity. This
was challenged by the respondents before the Tribunal in the
aforesaid O.A.
3. The Tribunal relying on its earlier decisions in M.K.Rajan &
Ors, V. Union of India in O.A. 606/2001 decided on 12.10.2001,
in respect of which the special leave petition, being SLP (Civil
No.11667/02) was dismissed on 4.8.2003, & Nathu Singh &
Ors. V. Union of India & Ors , 2002(1) ATJ8 and Giriraj
W.P. (C) No. 3833/2007 Page No. 2 of 3
Sharma v. UOI & Ors, O.A. No.65 of 2005, decided on 2.9.2005
allowed the aforesaid O.A.
4. Our attention has been drawn to two orders of this Court in
W.P(C)11884/2005, UOI v. Kailash Chand & Ors., and in W.P.
(C) No.2317/2002, UOI v. Nathu Singh & Ors., whereby similar
writ petitions filed by the UOI have been dismissed by this Court.
While dismissing the writ petitions, the Division Bench of this
Court took note of the fact that the Kerala High Court had taken a
similar view as taken by the Tribunal in those cases, and the
Supreme Court had also dismissed the special leave petition
against the judgment of the Kerala High Court. In fact the
judgment of the Kerala High Court has even been implemented.
5. Following the aforesaid decisions of this Court, we find no
merit in this petition and dismiss the same.
VIPIN SANGHI
JUDGE
A.K. SIKRI
JUDGE
October 29, 2007
P.K. BABBAR
W.P. (C) No. 3833/2007 Page No. 3 of 3