The Commissioner Mcd And Ors vs Rajinder Parshad Sharma And Ors
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 01.09.2026
Judgment delivered on : 03.09.2026
Judgment uploaded on : As per Digital Signature~
# CNR No. DLHC010002052011
+ W.P.(C) 4178/2011
THE COMMISSIONER MCD AND ORS .....Petitioners
versus
RAJINDER PARSHAD SHARMA AND ORS .....Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Petitioners : Mr. Tushar Sannu, SC and Mr. Vaibhav
Tripathi, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Shivanshu Bhardwaj, Mr. Himanshu
Bhardwaj and Mr. Sudhanshu Singh,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
CM APPL. 49150/2026 (clarification)
1. By this order, we shall decide CM Application No.49150/2026, which
has been filed by the respondent herein with the following prayers:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
15:38:49
CM APPL 49150/2026 in WP(C) No.4178/2011 Page 1 of 6
“a. Clarify the order dated 13.05.2026 passed in W.P.(C)
No. 4178/2011 to the extent that the grade pay applicable to
the post of Administrative Officer at the relevant point of
time was different and higher from that of Superintendent,
and also to the extent that the fixation in favour of the
Respondent should be carried out by the Petitioners keeping
in mind the subsequent revisions to the pay structure that
has been carried out for the post of Administrative Officer;
and/ or
b. To pass such other and further order, which this Hon’ble
Tribunal deem fit and proper in the existing facts and
circumstances of the case.”
2. Suffice to state that initially the captioned writ petition was decided
vide order dated 07.05.2013.
3. Thereafter, the Supreme Court passed the order dated 10.01.2014 to
the following effect:-
“After arguing the matter for sometime, learned counsel for
petitioner sought permission to withdraw the Special Leave
Petition to enable the petitioner to file a Review
Application. Liberty is granted without any liberty to
challenge the same very impugned order before this Court .
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.”
4. The petitioner filed the Review Petition No.473/2018, which was
decided by this Court vide order dated 13.05.2026 by stating in paragraphs
14-15 as under:-
“14. Suffice it to state, this Court had not taken into
consideration the Office order dated 31.08.2005, whereby
the respondent was granted promotion to the post of
Superintendent on ad hoc basis in the scale of Rs.6,500-
10,500 which is a higher scale and also the fact that, while
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
15:38:49
CM APPL 49150/2026 in WP(C) No.4178/2011 Page 2 of 6
working as Superintendent on ad hoc basis, he was given
current duty charge of the post of AO/AAC vide officer
order dated 31.08.2007. Though current duty charge does
not involve grant of the pay of the post, but in this case, the
scale of pay of AO/AAC was also Rs.6,500-10,500
equivalent to the scale of Superintendent, which was given
to the respondent with effect from 31.08.2005. The
respondent, who was promoted in the scale of Rs.6,500-
10,500 as Superintendent shall continue to draw the scale
even if he was given current duty charge as AO/AAC
because he shall be entitled to the scale as Superintendent
from which he was given current duty charge, of the post of
AAO/AAC.
15. So, it follows the respondent shall not be entitled to the
pay of Superintendent w.e.f. 18.05.2005 but surely w.e.f.
31.08.2005 and he shall continue to draw the scale of Rs.
6,500-10,500 even if he was given current duty charge of
the post of AO/AAC. This we say in view of the judgment
referred to by the Tribunal in the case of Selveraj (supra)
and also in the case of S. N. Paracer (supra).”
5. The submission of Mr. Shivanshu Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the
applicant is primarily that though this Court had granted the pay of the
Superintendent in the pay scale of Rs.6500 – 10500 including the revised
pay under pay band-II in grade pay of Rs.4800/-, but the conclusion drawn
by this Court in paragraph no.14 that the pay of the
Superintendent/AO/AAC being Rs.6500 – 10500 (pre-revised)
equivalent/identical is erroneous. According to him, the respondent shall be
entitled to the grade pay of Rs. 5400/- with effect from the date when he was
given current duty charge of AO/AAC.
6. The submission of Mr.Bhardwaj is drawing our attention to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
15:38:49
CM APPL 49150/2026 in WP(C) No.4178/2011 Page 3 of 6
application to contend that the pay of AO/AAC has undergone revision in
pay band-II with grade pay of Rs. 5400/- and as such the respondent would
be entitled to the pay in the grade pay of Rs.5400/- with effect from
31.08.2007 when the petitioner, who while working as Superintendent on ad
hoc basis was given current duty charge on the post of AO/AAC.
7. The petitioners herein have filed a reply to this application wherein in
paragraph nos.9 and 14, inter alia, it is stated as under:-
“9. It is submitted that, on examination of the Service Book
of Respondent No.1/Applicant, it is revealed that he has
already been granted the Pay Scale of Rs.6,500-200-
10,500/- w.e.f. 31.08.2005 for the post of Superintendent.
Thereafter, consequent upon implementation of the 6th
Central Pay Commission recommendations, his pay was
placed in Pay Band-II (Rs.9,300-34,800) with Grade Pay, of
Rs.4,800/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006, and fixed at Rs.13,210/- +
Grade Pay of Rs.4,800/-, vide order
No.AC(Estt.)/F.No.57/UDC-II/2015/2793 dated 12.02.2015
(already filed as part of Annexure A-7 (Colly.) to the
application), as is duly borne out from the relevant extract
of his Service Book.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
12.lt is well settled that an officer who is merely assigned
the current/additional duty charge of a higher post, without
being promoted thereto regularly or on ad hoc basis
continues to draw the pay and grade pay of his own
substantive post, and does not acquire any entitlement to the
pay or grade pay attached to the post whose charge he
holds, particularly where, as here, the terms of the
assignment itself expressly disclaim any such entitlement.
Respondent No.1/Applicant, having accepted the assignment
of current duty charge subject to the aforesaid express
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
15:38:49
CM APPL 49150/2026 in WP(C) No.4178/2011 Page 4 of 6
terms and conditions, cannot now be permitted to claim the
Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/- attached to the post of
Administrative Officer, an entitlement which never accrued
to him.”
8. So, the issue is whether in terms of our order dated 13.05.2026, the
respondent is entitled to grade pay of Rs.5400/- with effect from 31.08.2007.
9. We have already concluded in paragraph no.15 of the order dated
13.05.2026 that even if the government employee is given current duty
charge of higher post, he would be entitled to the pay attached to the higher
post.
10. The petitioners herein have not contested the said finding. Their only
plea in the reply is that if an officer is merely assigned current / additional
duty charge of a higher post, without being promoted thereto regularly or on
ad hoc basis he shall continue to draw the grade pay of his own substantial
post and does not acquire any such entitlement to pay or grade pay attached
to the post, whose charge he holds. This stand is contrary to the conclusion
as drawn by us in paragraph no.15 above.
11. The pay of AO/AAC has been revised in the Pay Band-2 with grade
pay of Rs.5400/-. Surely, the respondent shall be entitled to grade pay of
Rs.5400/- with effect from 31.08.2007, when he was given the current duty
charge.
12. Accordingly, we hold that the respondent shall be entitled to grade
pay of Rs.5400/- with effect from 31.08.2007. To that extent, we clarify the
order dated 13.05.2026. All consequential action of payment of arrears with
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
15:38:49
CM APPL 49150/2026 in WP(C) No.4178/2011 Page 5 of 6
interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall be made to the
respondent/applicant herein within a period of three months from today.
13. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
SEPTEMBER 03, 2026
M
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
15:38:49
CM APPL 49150/2026 in WP(C) No.4178/2011 Page 6 of 6