AJAY KUMAR PURI & ORS  Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS

W.P.(C) 520/2021 Page 1 of 8
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 27th January, 2021
+ W.P. (C) 520/2021
AJAY KUMAR PURI & ORS . …..Petitioners
Through: Mr. D. P. Sharma, Advocate
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS . …..Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhay Prakash Sahay, CGSC
with Ms. Mannu Singh and Ms.
Indira Goswaini, Advocate

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON

J U D G M E N T

ASHA MENON , J: (Oral)

CM APPL.1344/2021
Exemption allowed, s ubject to all just exceptions.
W.P. (C) 520/2021
1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. The petitioners are presently working as Assistant Accounts
Officers (AAOs) in their parent cadre with the Government of NCT of
Delhi (GNCTD) . In re sponse to an Advertisement issued by the
Department of Telecommunications (for short, „DoT‟), Ministry of
2021:DHC:308-DBW.P.(C) 520/2021 Page 2 of 8
Communications & Information Technology, Government of India,
through Circulars dated 27th December, 2012/5th November, 2012 and
with reference to let ter dated 1st October, 2012 of the Assistant Director
General (SEA), Ministry of Communications & Information Technology,
Government of India, Sanchar Bhawan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi, they
applied for appointment as AAOs. Having passed the Departmental AAO
exam and fulfilling the eligibility conditions, they were taken on
deputation by the DoT. Some of the copies of the appointment offers
have been placed on the record as Annexure P -4 to the O.A. No.3380 of
2019, which was filed before the Central Administra tive Tribunal (for
short, the „Tribunal‟).
3. This O.A. had been filed with a grievance that the petitioners had
been treated at par with the „promot ees‟ by the DoT when in actual fact
they ought to have been treated as „direct recruits‟ as per the Recruitme nt
Rules of 2018 and granted the minimum pay -scale of „direct recruits‟ of
Rs.13,350/ – corresponding to the Grade Pay of Rs.4800/ – instead of what
they had been given i.e. the pay -scale of Rs.9300 – 34,800/ – + Grade Pay
of Rs.4800/ -.
4. Vide the impugned ord er dated 26th November, 2019, the Tribunal
dismissed the O.A. with the following observation: –
“6. The applicants are the permanent employees of the
GNCTD, occupying various posts and were in the pay
scale of Rs.5200 -20200 + Grade Pay of Rs.1900. On
being selected and appointed as AAO in the
Department of Telecommunications by way of
deputation, they were extended the pay scale of
Rs.9,300+Grade Pay Rs.4800. It was indeed a
2021:DHC:308-DBW.P.(C) 520/2021 Page 3 of 8
phenomenal increase. The applicant s did not raise any
objection as to the fixation of the pay structure, when
they were appointed on deputation. It is only after they
were repatriated to the parent department, that they
made a representation, stating th at their pay structure
should have been Rs.13500 with Grade Pay of
Rs.4800. Hardly, a ny basis is shown for this. In any
case, the principle of estopp el and acquiescence comes
into play. ”

5. Dissatisfied, the applicants filed a review application contending
that the borrowing department had fixed the pay of the applicants
erroneously under Ru le 13 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 treating them as
„promotees‟ to the minimum stage of pay of Rs.9300/ – in the PB -II which
corresponds to Grade Pay of Rs.4200/ – whereas the applicants being
outsiders belonging to GNCTD cadre, they were „direct recruits‟
appoin ted for a specified period on deputation and were entitled for
fixation of their pay under Rule 7 of the said Rules, ensuring minimum
pay of Rs.13,350/ – in the PB -II corresponding to Grade Pay of Rs.4800/ –
of the deputation post. However, vide order dated 6th January, 2020, the
Tribunal rejected the review application holding that all the points urged
by the applicants were dealt with in the order dated 26th November, 2019.
6. Aggrieved by these two orders , the present petition has been filed
with the follo wing prayers: –
“a). Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing
the impugned order dated 26.11.2019 in Original
Application No. 3880/2019 and Order dated
06.01.2020 in the Review Application NO.05/2020 in
Original Application No. 3880/2019 passed b y the
2021:DHC:308-DBW.P.(C) 520/2021 Page 4 of 8
Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal
Bench, New Delhi.
b). Set aside and quash the impugned order dated
13.05.2013 fixing the pay of the petitioners under Rule
13 of the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 treating them as
‘Promotees’ on joining their on their appointment as
AAO .
c). Set aside and quash the impugned order No.25 –
03/2015 -SEA-II dated 11.11.2019, fortified by the
arbitrary, irrelevant and discriminato ry observations
of Department of Expenditure made vide ID Note No.
3-19/2019 -E.III(A) dated 19.08.2019/ e FTS
1122213/2019, in denying correct re -fixation of their
pay.
d). Direct the respondents to fix the pay of the
petitioners to Rs. 13350/ – under THE FIRST
SCHEDULE, PART -A, Section -II corresponding to GP
of Rs. 4,800/ – in Table 2 for PB -2(Rs.9,300 -34,800) &
under Rule 7 of the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008.
e). Direct the respondents to give all consequential
benefits as outcome of the above relief.
f). Direct the respondents to pay litigation charges as
deemed appropriate.
g). Pass any other order as may be deemed just and
proper in the facts & circumstances of the case.”

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sh.D.P.Sharma, submitted that
the Tribunal had erred in rejecting the claims of the petitioners. It was
also submitted that the letter dated 19th August, 2019 issued by the
Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Government of India
had arbitrarily rejected the claim of the petitioners for parity with the
„direct recruits ‟ on the plea that as per the R ecruitment Rules ( RRs)
2021:DHC:308-DBW.P.(C) 520/2021 Page 5 of 8
applicable during the period 1st January, 2006 to 31st December, 2015,
there was no element of direct recruitment and that the RRs for
recruitment to the post of AAOs through promotion, failing which
deputation, and failing both, by direct recruitment, were effective only
from 2nd April, 2018. The learned counsel on the basis of a Resolution
placed on the record as Annexure A-3 claimed that the department had on
20th August, 2009 recommended change in the RRs which finally came
into force in April, 2018 incorporating the option of direct recruitment
and therefore, once the Rules introduced direct recruitment and since the
petitioners were “appointed ” on deputation, they had to be treated as
„first-time appointees ‟, to be placed at par with the „direct recruits ‟.
Learne d counsel submitted that the petitioners did not belong to the DoT
but were employees of the GNCTD and could not be treated as
„promotees‟ because they could not have been promoted in the DoT. He
relied on the definitions as provided in the “FAQs on Recrui tment Rules ”
issued by the Government of India dated 24th March, 2009, placed at
Annexure -P5, to support this argument.
8. The learned counsel also drew our attention to the Table
reproduced in the writ petition in para No.2.19 to contend that the
minimum ent ry pay for „direct recruits‟ for a post with Grade Pay of
Rs.4800/ – was Rs.13,350/ – whereas Rs.9300/ – was the minimum entry
pay for a Grade Pay of Rs.4200/ – and that once the petitioners were
placed in the Grade Pay of Rs.4800/ -, automatically they were en titled to
receive a pay of Rs.13,350/ – compatible with the said Grade Pay.
9. After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the record, we find
no merit in the submissions made. Admittedly, the petitioners were
2021:DHC:308-DBW.P.(C) 520/2021 Page 6 of 8
LDCs/UDCs at the time they had applied to the p ost of AAO on
deputation with DoT. As is clear from the definitions relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioners himself, the „deputationists‟ are not the
same as „direct recruits‟. If the petitioners cannot be equated to
„promotees‟ , by the same logic , they are also not „direct recruits‟. The
argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that because
subsequently in the year 2018, the RRs were revised to include the
appointment as AAOs through promotion and in the absence of eligible
person s for promotion, by deputation and direct recruitment, the
explanation offered by the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of
Finance, Government of India vide letter dated 19th August, 2019 was
incorrect, cannot be accepted. The petitioners will be governe d by the
contemporaneous RRs in force at the time they were taken as AAOs in
the DoT. Moreover, the resolution ( Annexure A-3) refers to the need to
bring new RRs after the amalgamation/merger of the Department of Posts
and the Department of Telecommunicati ons. Nothing else has been
brought to our notice to justify the claim of the petitioners for being
placed at a higher pay. The learned counsel has conceded that at the same
Grade Pay, there were different Pay Bands . Thus also there can be no
automatic pegg ing of the Pay Band , as sought by the learned counsel on
the basis of the Grade Pay i.e. of Rs.13,350/ – for Grade Pay of Rs.4800/ -.
In fact, from the very Table, reproduced in the petition, it is clear that as
per Rule 13 of the CCS (RP) Rules, the minimum pay remains Rs.9300/ –
for „promotees ‟ with different Grade Pays.
10. It is important to note that deputation is governed by specific
terms. I n the instant case, the A dvertisement itself, placed at Annexure –
2021:DHC:308-DBW.P.(C) 520/2021 Page 7 of 8
P3, records clearly that some posts of AAOs in the p ay-scale of Rs.9300 –
34,800/ – + Grade Pay of Rs.4800/ – in the DoT are to be filled up by
transfer on deputation basis . The O.M. relating to offer of appointment to
the post of AAOs in the DoT has been placed on the record as Annexure
A-4 (colly. ) and is dat ed 26th February, 2013 . The terms and condition s
have also been listed in this O.M.. T he period of deputation was to be
initially for a period of one year extendable upto 3 years and candidates
who were willing to work for a minimum period of three years and who
could be so spared by their parent department, alone were to be
considered for appointment. It also records that the appointment was
purely temporarily on deputation basis and also that the terms and
conditions of deputation of the officers selecte d shall be regulated in
terms of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
(Department of Personnel and Training) OM No. 6/08/2009 -Estt. (Pay II)
dated 17th June, 2010 and other rules and instructions on deputation
issued from time to time. The O.M. dated 23rd April, 2013 , pursuant to
acceptance to the offer of appointment conveyed vide O.M. dated 26th
February, 2013 and placed on record as Annexure A-5 (colly.) , reiterates
that the deputation of the officers was governed by the terms and
conditions of the O.M. dated 17th June, 2010. Most importantly, it also
gave the officers an option for electing the scale of pay of the present
organization plus deputation allowance or the scale of pay of the
deputation post in terms of the DoP&T Guidelines dated 17th June, 2010.
11. Admittedly, the petitioners were in the pay scale of Rs.5200 –
20,200/ – + Grade Pay of Rs.1900/ – in their parent departments and clea rly
they did not opt for their existing pay -scale with deputation allowance.
2021:DHC:308-DBW.P.(C) 520/2021 Page 8 of 8
They opted for the scal e that was advertised and to which they were
appointed i.e. Rs.9300/ – + Grade Pay of Rs.4800/ -. The learned Tribunal
was right in observing that the claims of the petitioners were barred by
the principle of estoppel and acquiescence. Through some of the
representations that have been placed on the record as Annexure A -10
(colly.) , it is apparent that the petitioners completed their deputation by
the year 2015 -16. Even if it is assumed that the modification in the RRs
was pending consideration since 2009 , this fact can in no way accrue to
the benefit of the petitioners as only those who were taken on deputation
after the modified RRs could even stake any claim, if at all , of parity with
„direct recruits‟ , though we make no comment on the merits of such a
claim. Since the revised RRs were not applicable to those
promoted/appointed on deputation , the stand taken by Department of
Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Government of India in the letter dated
19th August, 2019 cannot be faulted.
12. We do not find any erro r in the conclusions drawn by the Tribunal.
The petition lacks merits and is dismissed.
13. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the
judgment be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e -mail.

ASHA MENON , J

MANMOHAN , J
JANUARY 27, 2021
s
2021:DHC:308-DB