SK SHARMA  Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

W.P. (C) 261/2021 Page 1 of 6
$~ Suppl. -19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 261/2021 & CM APPL. 650/2021
SK SHARMA ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nilansh Gaur, Advocate.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. S. R ajappa, Advocate for
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan.

% Date of Decision: 08th January, 2021

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON’BLE M S. JUSTICE ASHA MENON

J U D G M E N T
MANMOHAN , J: (Oral)
1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Present writ petition has been filed challe nging the orders dated 15th
January, 2020 and 23rd October, 2019 passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘CAT’) in OA No.969/2018 and OA
No.2630/2014 respectively. The relevant portion of the impugned order is
reproduced h ereinbelow: –
“7. From the above, it becomes clear that it was dealing with
a situation arising out of merger of three posts with the pay
scales of (a) ₹5000 -8000, (b) ₹5500 -9000; and (c) ₹6500 –
10500, as a result of recommendations of 6th CPC. The merger
naturally led to serious imbalances. It can be easily
demonstrated. For the pay scale (a), the benefit of merger was
2021:DHC:74-DBW.P. (C) 261/2021 Page 2 of 6
₹2500/ – at the initial stage and for the post (b), it was ₹1000/ -,
whereas for the post (c), it was NIL.
8. Another discrepancy was that the last of the posts , in
many cases, was a promotional one and rest of the two, were
feeder categories. Naturally complaints poured in and those,
who were earlier in the pay scale of ₹6500 -10500 with Grade
Pay of ₹4600/ -, made a grievance about the merger .
9. The CPC itself suggested some solutions. For example, it
recommended segregation of the first two categories and
elevation of the third one, to higher level, even while promoting
the first two, to the level of third one, in the pre -revised scale.
The second alternative was to extend the benefit of enhanced
Grade Pay of ₹4600/ – to the post, which had the revised pay
scale of ₹6500 -10500 with Grade Pay of ₹4200/ -. Paragraphs
(4) & (5) throw light on this aspect.
10. It is not the case of the applicants that the post of
Primary Teacher was in the pre -revised pay scale of ₹6500 –
10500 with Grade Pay of ₹4200/ – as on 01.01.2006. That scale
accrued to them only as a result of the implementation of the
recommendations of 6th CPC. To put it in other words, the y did
not draw that pay scale as on 31.12.2005.
11. When the benefit under the O.M. was only to those who
were in the pre -revised pay scale of ₹6500 -10500 with Grade
Pay of ₹4200/ – as on 01.01.2006, the applicants, who were
extended the benefit only from that date onwards and not
earlier, cannot be extended it.
12. Learned counsel for applicants submits that within the
organization of KVS, the benefit, referable to this O.M., was
extended by placing certain interpretations. If that be the case,
they have to work out the remedies in a different way. ”
2021:DHC:74-DBW.P. (C) 261/2021 Page 3 of 6
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the CAT failed to
appreciate that the respondent s had misinterpreted the Ministry of Finance
OM dated 13th November, 2009 and failed to grant the benefits to the
petitioner even though the same ha d been uniformly and universally applied
to the incumbents and posts where on 01st January, 2006, the pre -revised
scale was Rs.6500 -10500 with grade pay of Rs.4200. According to him, in
all such cases, the incumbents were placed in the higher grade pay of
Rs.4600. He emphasises that that higher grade pay ha d been paid to several
identically situated employees of various Ministries and Departments like
Railways, LIC, FCI and CSS . He contends that as on 01st January, 2006 the
petitioner was in the pay scale of Rs.6500 -10500 and was thus entitled to
OM dated 13th November, 2009. In support of his submission, he relies upon
the judgment rendered by the High Court of Patna in Prabhas Chandra
Karn & Ors. vs. The Union of India & O rs., MANU/BH/1230/2015
wherein it has been held as under: –
“18. The Court after considering the material and the
submissions comes to a considered opinion that the
decision notified in Annexure -14 cannot be sustained for
the reason that the special body l ike a Pay Revision
Committee’s recommendations cannot be lightly
interfered with or replaced by a notification issued by an
executive in such a cursory and casual manner. It was
because of such a recommendation that all these persons
started drawing the re placement scale from the year 2009
unhindered till Annexure -14 came to be issued
unilaterally.
19. Not only this, if the State’s stand is accepted, an
anomalous situation is created by giving two kinds of
pay-scales to the same kind of employees merely on the
basis of their date of appointment, which has no nexus
2021:DHC:74-DBW.P. (C) 261/2021 Page 4 of 6
with the object sought to be achieved while granting
benefit of pay revision.
20. In the totality, therefore, both the writ applications
succeed. The impugned order, contained in Annexure -14,
stand s quashed. ”
4. Learned counsel for petitioner also submits that the Central
Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Branch vide its order dated 07th March,
2013 passed in OA 84/2011 while allowing the OA directed the respondents
therein to adopt the same method of fixation of pay i.e. by first placing the
employees in the revised pay scale notionally on 01st January, 2006 and
accordingly, thereafter, in the revised pay structure in the terms of the
revised Pay Rules. He states that it was observed by the Tribunal th at the
decision shall be treated as a judgment in rem to grant the same benefit to
similarly situated persons in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation. He
contends that the petitioner in his OA had also sought the extension of
benefit of this judgment. Accordingly, he prays for a direction to the
respondents to extend the benefit of OM dated 13th November, 2009 , issued
by the Ministr y of Finance, to the petitioner, by granting grade pay of
Rs.4600 w.e.f. 01st January, 2006 with arrears and benefits.
5. Per contra, Mr. S. Rajappa, learned counsel for Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan submits that the contentions and submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the petitioner are contrary to the facts and untenable in
law.
6. He states that t he Ministry of Finance vide OM dated 13.11.2009 ha d
granted the Grade Pay o f Rs.4600/ – in place of Rs.4200/ – to those cadres
who were in the pre -revis ed scale of pay Rs.6500 -10500 (Fifth Pay
2021:DHC:74-DBW.P. (C) 261/2021 Page 5 of 6
Commission ), whereas the post of PRT in KVS was in the pay scale of
Rs.4500 -125-7000. He further states that t he Sixth Pay Commission , while
recommending the pay scales for teaching staff i.e. under Part -B, Section II
(XVII) ha d generously upgraded this cadre from 1.1.2006 i.e. by granting
them the Pay Band -II with Grade Pay of Rs.4200/ – otherwise the
replacement scale for the pre -revised Pay Scale of Rs.4500 -125-7000 was in
the Pay Band -I with Grade Pay of Rs.2800/ -.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the
petitioner is a primary teacher in KVS in grade -III w ho was in the pay band
of Rs.4500 -7000 under the Fifth Pay Commission. As pre -revision the
petitioner’s pay scale was not in the pay band of Rs.6500 -10500, this Court
is in ag reement with the view of the Tribunal that the petitioner is not
entitled to the benefit under the said OM. This Court is of the opinion that
the OM dated 13th November, 2009 seeks to remove the grievance of those
who were in the highest pay scale prior to the merger of three pay scales on
account of Sixth Pay Commission recommendation s. It is pertinent to
mention that on account of Sixth Pay Commission recommendation s there
was merger of three pay scales, namely Rs.5000 -8000, Rs.5500 -9000 and
Rs.6500 -10500 . As the aforesaid three pay scales were merged together , the
highest pay scale i.e. Rs.6500 -10500 receive d no increment /benefit on
account of merger but the lower two pay scales got increment /benefits .
Accordingly , the OM dated 13th November, 2009 provid ed enhanced grade
pay only to those who were in the highest pay scale prior to the merger of
three pay scales on account of Sixth Pay Commission recommendations.
8. This Court is further of the view that the judgments of the Patna High
Court in Prabhas Chand ra Karn & Ors. vs. The Union of India & Ors.,
2021:DHC:74-DBW.P. (C) 261/2021 Page 6 of 6
(Supra) as well as the Central Administrative Tribunal , Ernakulam Branch
offer no assistance to the petitioner as they neither deal with nor interpret the
OM dated 13th November, 2009. The employees of various Ministries and
Departments like Railways, LIC, FCI and CSS receive d benefits under
separate and independent circulars and OMs and not the OM dated 13th
November, 2009.
9. Accordingly, the present writ petition, being bereft of merits, is
dismissed.
10. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be
also forwarded to the learned counsel through e -mail.

MANMOHAN, J

ASHA MENON , J
JANUARY 08, 2021
JS/AS

2021:DHC:74-DB