Skip to content


j.p. Dubey vs.uoi & Ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Appellantj.p. Dubey
RespondentUoi & Ors.
Excerpt:
.....stand rescinded. the d.p.c. of 1996 and all consequential orders regarding promotion against upgraded posts shall also stand revoked.2. to protect the 37 direct recruits who were holding post of commandants, the union of india shall create 37 supernumerary posts of commandants (22 as commandant selection grade) and 15 as commandant non-selection grade), which shall be held by the 37 direct recruits who were holding the said posts on the date of judgment dated 2.9.1985 passed by the high court of delhi.3. the vacancies of 13 posts occurring in the year 1986 of commandant (non-selection grade) shall be filled afresh by means of a d.p.c. the d.p.c. shall make promotions in accordance with rules and shall operate upon the revised w.p. (c) 216/2000 page 4 of 8 seniority list prepared by.....
Judgment:

$~R-6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + W.P. (C) 216/2000 J.P. DUBEY Date of decision:

10. 11.2016 ........ Petitioner

Through Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocate. versus UOI & ORS. Through None ........ RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA INDIRA BANERJEE, J (ORAL) JUDGMENT No one has appeared to oppose the writ petition. This writ petition is directed against the failure and or refusal of the 1.

2. respondent authorities to pay to the petitioner, an officer of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) arrears of salary claimed to be due and payable to the petitioner for the period from 17.08.1987 to 06.07.1990 when he was on deputation in the Intelligence Bureau as an Assistant Director.

3. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are stated very briefly herein below. W.P. (C) 216/2000 Page 1 of 8 4. The petitioner was directly recruited as a Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Central Reserve Police Force on 08.02.1967. In the same year i.e. 1967, some Emergency Commissioned Officers who had retired from the Army were also given jobs in the Central Reserve Police Force.

5. In 1983, the petitioner was promoted as Commandant and in 1985, he was given the Selection Grade. Similarly, other batch mates of the petitioner were also promoted as Commandant and later given the selection grade.

6. The retired Emergency Commissioned Officers of the Army who had also been appointed in the Central Reserve Police Force filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the promotion of the petitioner and his batch mates. It is stated that the petitioner and his batch mates were not impleaded as parties to the writ petition.

7. The writ petition filed by the retired Emergency Commissioned Officers recruited in the Central Reserve Police Force was allowed by an order dated 2nd September 1985. This Court directed upgradation of 88 posts of Commandants to accommodate the retired Emergency Commissioned Officers and further directed reversion of the petitioner and his batch mates.

8. Being aggrieved, the petitioner and his batch mates filed Special W.P. (C) 216/2000 Page 2 of 8 Leave Petitions in the Supreme Court being SLP (C) No.5626-5627/1987 and 11550/1987. On 17.08.1987, the petitioner was sent on deputation as Assistant Director in the Intelligence Bureau of the Government of India. The petitioner took charge of the post of Assistant Director in the Intelligence Bureau in the forenoon of 17.08.1987.

9. A Notification No.7/C-III/87 (144)-3009 was issued by the Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs and Government of India notifying that the president had been pleased to appoint the petitioner as an Assistant Director of the Intelligence Bureau, Headquarter of Delhi for a period of five years on deputation basis with effect from the forenoon of 17.08.1987. As per the said notification, while on deputation, the petitioner was to be governed by the terms and conditions laid down in the Ministry of Finance Om No.F-1(11)-E. III (B)/75 dated 07.11.1975 as amended from time to time.

10. It appears that at the time of appointment as an Assistant Director in the Intelligence Bureau Headquarter, the basic pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.4225 in the pay scale of Rs.4100-125-4850-150-5300. The petitioner was entitled to some other allowances such as Deputation Allowance of Rs.423/-, Dearness Allowance of Rs.280/- and City W.P. (C) 216/2000 Page 3 of 8 Compensatory Allowance of Rs.100/-. This Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner and his batch-mates in the Supreme Court against the order of this Court dated 2nd October 1985, was disposed of by consent, by a Judgment and order dated 14.03.1989, the operative part whereof is set out herein below for the convenience. “In the circumstances, in order to establish peace and amity between the contending parties and for ends of justice, we direct that, in modification of the impugned judgment of the High Court, the appeals be disposed of in accordance with the terms of settlement, as agreed to by the direct results and the ECOs, as follows:-

"1. The Union of India shall withdraw the order viz. order No.F.2/10/86-Estt (CRPF) PP IV dated 18.06.1986 with immediate effect. The order providing for upgradation of 88 posts of Assistant Commandant (2nd in command) to the post of Commandants (Non Selection Grade) shall thus stand rescinded. The D.P.C. of 1996 and all consequential orders regarding promotion against upgraded posts shall also stand revoked.

2. To protect the 37 direct recruits who were holding post of Commandants, the Union of India shall create 37 supernumerary posts of Commandants (22 as Commandant Selection Grade) and 15 as Commandant Non-Selection Grade), which shall be held by the 37 direct recruits who were holding the said posts on the date of judgment dated 2.9.1985 passed by the High Court of Delhi.

3. The vacancies of 13 posts occurring in the year 1986 of Commandant (Non-Selection Grade) shall be filled afresh by means of a D.P.C. The D.P.C. shall make promotions in accordance with rules and shall operate upon the revised W.P. (C) 216/2000 Page 4 of 8 seniority list prepared by the Department pursuant to the judgment of the High Court dated 2.9.1985 affirmed by this Court on 21.1.1986.

4. The subsequent vacancies in the year 1987 and 1988 for the posts of Commandants (Non- Selection Grade) shall be filled in accordance with rules and the promotions shall be made through D.P.C in accordance with law/Rules.

5. The Union of India shall review the D.P.C of 1985 for the posts of Commandants and such review shall be completed as early as possible. Further, 35 ECOs who have already been promoted 6. as Commandant (Non-Selection Grade) till today will hold the posts of Commandant (Selection Grade) till today will hold the posts of Commandant (Selection Grade), from the date they were promoted as Commandant (Non-Selection Grade) with the condition that they will not be paid any salary for the post of Commandant (Selection Grade) till their turn promotion to Commandant (Selection Grade) against regular vacancies, as per the seniority list. Each party to bear his/its own costs.” It is not in dispute that the Union of India was a party to the Special 11. Leave Petition and is bound by the Judgment and order of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court specifically directed the Union of India to create 37 Supernumerary Posts of Commandants (22 of Commandant Selection Grade and 15 of Commandants Non Selection Grade) which could be filled up by 37 direct recruits, including the petitioner, who had been holding the said posts on the date of judgment dated 02.09.1985 of this Court. W.P. (C) 216/2000 Page 5 of 8 12. The vacancies were duly filled up in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was granted the benefit of the Supreme Court Order inasmuch as he was given promotion. However, he was denied consequential benefits. It appears that the petitioner made several representations and also approached the High Court at Allahabad which disposed of his writ petition with directions on the respondents to consider his claim in accordance with law. The respondents did not grant the petitioner the arrears whereupon the petitioner again approached the High Court at Allahabad seeking directions for implementation of its order and for grant of arrears. Be it noted that the petitioner approached the Allahabad High Court since the petitioner was at the material time posted at Allahabad.

13. It appears that the writ proceedings in the High Court at Allahabad were disposed of with the direction on the petitioner to approach this Court since the respondents were located within the jurisdiction of this Court.

14. The short question involved in this writ petition is whether the petitioner could have been singled out from amongst 37 officers and denied arrears of pay and allowances only by reason of his deputation as Assistant Director in the Intelligence Bureau, more so, when admittedly, he agreed to W.P. (C) 216/2000 Page 6 of 8 the deputation on the specific condition that he would be governed by his pay and other emoluments in the parent cadre, to which the respondent authorities acceded.

15. In the proceedings before the Allahabad High Court, the respondents contended that the petitioner could not be granted the consequential benefits of arrears of pay since the rules did not permit the payment of such arrears.

16. Having created posts in compliance with the orders of the Supreme Court having appointed the petitioner, the respondent authorities have patently erred in denying the petitioner the consequential benefits of his promotion which includes arrears which have been granted to the other officers similarly circumstanced as the petitioner except that, they were not required to serve on deputation in a different department.

17. In our view, the matter has assumed finality with the final judgment and order of the Supreme Court in terms whereof all the petitioners before the Supreme Court were required to be granted the consequential benefits of promotion to the post of Commandants (Non-Selection Grade). After passing of the aforesaid order, it is not open to the respondents to deny arrears of salary to the petitioner on the purported ground that the petitioner was governed by a Memorandum in course of his deputation in the W.P. (C) 216/2000 Page 7 of 8 Intelligence Bureau as a result of which, the scale of the petitioner became higher than the upper limit in terms of the said Memorandum, upon implementation of the order of the Supreme Court.

18. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The respondent shall within three months from the date of communication of this order calculate all the arrears of salary and emoluments due and payable to the petitioner and release the same to the petitioner with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date on which the emoluments were released to the other batch-mates of the petitioner who served in the parent cadre. INDIRA BANERJEE, J ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA, J NOVEMBER10 2016 rs W.P. (C) 216/2000 Page 8 of 8


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //