UNION OF INDIA & ANR. vs K.C. (KAILASH CHAND) BELWAL & ORS.

$~39
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 05.03.2024
+ LPA 226/2023 CM APPL. 16205/2023 CM APPL. 13760/2024
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ….. Appellants
Through: Mr.Arnav Kumar, CGSC and Mr.Gardas Khurana, Advocate.
Versus
K.C. (KAILASH CHAND) BELWAL & ORS. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr.N.L.Bareja, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
1. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 22.09.2022 (hereafter the impugned order) passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the respondents [W.P.(C) No.13400/2021 captioned K.C.Belwal & Ors v. Union of India & Ors.] was allowed and the appellants were directed to extend the benefit of revision of pay scales to the respondents (petitioners in W.P.(C) No.13400/2021) on the basis of the parity as granted to the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.1915/2000.
2. The respondents were earlier working as Assistants in Central Tibetan Schools Administration (CTSA), which was subsumed in Kendriya Vidhalya Sangathan (KVS). The respondents had filed the aforementioned petition being W.P.(C) No.13400/2021 as they were denied the benefits of pay revision, which was extended to the persons who were similarly placed as the respondents.
3. It is not in dispute that certain persons, who were identically placed as the respondents, had filed the petition – W.P.(C) No.1915/2000 seeking benefit of pay upgradation. The said petition was allowed and the petitioners – who were identically placed as the respondents – were granted the benefit of pay upgradation in terms of an order dated 07.05.2002 passed by this court in the said petition [ W.P.(C) No.1915/2000].
4. Concededly, the appellants had preferred an appeal against the said order dated 07.05.2002 passed in W.P.(C) No.1915/2000. However, the said appeal was dismissed. The appellants had also sought to appeal before the Supreme Court, but were unsuccessful. Thus, the order dated 07.05.2002 passed in W.P.(C) No.1915/2000 has attained finality.
5. Admittedly, the order dated 07.05.2002 was implemented and the benefit of pay revision was extended to petitioners who filed the said petition [W.P.(C) No.1915/2000], and were working as Assistants. However, the respondents – although identically placed – have been denied the said benefit.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the order dated 07.05.2002 passed in W.P.(C) No.1915/2000 is erroneous and therefore, the respondents would not be entitled to any such benefit. He submits that the benefit must necessarily be restricted to the petitioners in that case as there is no negative equality. He also states that there are subsequent decisions to support the contention that the order dated 07.05.2002 is erroneous.
7. We are unable to accept the aforesaid contention. Clearly, the persons identically placed cannot be treated differently. Since a batch of persons who were working as Assistants had prevailed in their contention that they are entitled to a pay upgradation, the respondents who are similarly placed would necessarily have to be extended the same benefit.
8. The learned Single Judge had held that there is no justification in the stand taken by the appellants to deny the respondents, the benefit of pay scale enhancement as was granted to the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.1915/2000.
9. We concur with the aforesaid view.
10. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appeal against the order dated 07.05.2002 in W.P.(C) No.1915/2000 was not dismissed on merits, but on account of delay. It is also suggested that therefore the said order would be open to challenge. The said contention is unmerited. The order dated 07.05.2002 has attained finality. Notwithstanding that the appeal against the said order may have been dismissed on the grounds of delay, the same does not render the said decision as vulnerable to be challenged in other proceedings.
11. It is also submitted on behalf of the appellants that the petition filed by the respondents was belated as they were promoted in the year 2012 and filed the writ petition in the year 2021. The learned counsel contends that the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and latches.
12. We are not persuaded to accept the said contention. The respondents have filed the petition on the ground that they are entitled for pay upgradation on the principle of parity as was granted to the other similarly situated employees. Concededly, the benefit of pay revision was granted to the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.1915/2000 in the year 2021. Prior to that date, neither the respondents nor the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.1915/2000 were granted the benefit of upward pay revision. The claim of the respondents that they have been denied the benefit which has been granted to other similarly placed employees, arose in the year 2021.
13. It is also pointed out that the respondents were declared surplus and have been absorbed in KVS with effect from 01.04.2022. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the employees of KVS, which are similarly placed as the respondents, are drawing a lesser pay and have not been granted benefit of pay revision. It is contended that if the relief as granted to the respondents is upheld, the respondents by virtue of absorption in KVS, would be in a higher pay scale than the Assistants employed with KVS.
14. It is noted that the learned Single Judge has not expressed any view as to the aforesaid contention and has confined the relief to direct that the benefit of pay revision till 31.03.2022. The respondents have made a representation seeking enhancement of their pay scale with effect from 01.04.2022 and the said representation is pending. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has kept open all rights and contentions of the parties in this regard. The impugned order is confined only to extending the benefit of pay revision to the respondents till 31.03.2022 on the principle of parity with other persons who were working on the post of Assistants and were identically placed as the respondents.
15. We find no infirmity with the impugned judgment. The appeal is unmerited and is, accordingly, dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J
MARCH 05, 2024
M Click here to check corrigendum, if any

LPA 226/2023 Page 2 of 2