Daya Chand, S/o Late Sh. Prithvi Singh vs Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant retired from service of the Delhi Police, as Sub Inspector on 31.01.2012. While in service, he made representation to the Commissioner of Police on 31.01.2011, stating that at the time of his promotion to the post of Head Constable, he was not aware of an option, in the context of fixation of pay scales, and on account of that, while ended up the pay at a lower level, his junior by name, Shri Prem Prakash, was drawing a higher pay. Accordingly, he made a request for removal of the anomaly, and for refixation of pay scale. Stating that no action has been taken thereon, the applicant filed OA No.2155/2012 before this Tribunal. The same was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass a detailed order within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

An order was passed by the respondents on 29. 08.2012 rejecting the plea of the applicant. It was mentioned that the occasion to invoke the Fundamental Rule regarding removal of anomaly of pay scale between a junior and senior does not arise. It was also mentioned that the discrepancy arose on account of the fact that though the applicant and Shri Prem Prakash were promoted on the post of Head Constable on the same day, the latter exercised the option for fixation of his pay scale coinciding with the date on which the increment became due, whereas the applicant wanted his pay to be fixed from the date of promotion itself. Other grounds are also mentioned. This OA is filed challenging the said Order.

The applicant contends that the respondents have attributed the discrepancy to the so-called failure on his part to exercise the option, and as a matter of fact, such an option was not given to him at all. He made reference to various instances where belated option was also given. He has relied on an Order dated 11. 10.2011 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.1121/2011. Other grounds are also pleaded.

The respondents filed a counter affidavit opposing the OA. It is stated that the applicant and Shri Prem Prakash were promoted to the post of Head Constable on 12.06.1987, and while the applicant insisted that his pay be fixed immediately, Shri Prem Prakash chose to get his pay fixed from the date on which his annual increment became due. They contend that the applicant made a belated claim at the verge of his retirement, and the same was dealt with in accordance with law.

We heard Shri Sourabh Ahuja, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Sangita Rai, learned counsel for the respondents.

It was way back on 12.06.1997, that the applicant and Shri Prem Prakash were promoted to the post of Head Constable. Earlier to that, both of them had put in ten years of service, and they were drawing the same pay, all through. The pay of the applicant in the post of Head Constable was fixed at Rs.1,075/-, on promotion. Shri Prem Prakash on the other hand, exercised the option that fixation of his pay in the post of Head Constable be done from the date on which he gets increment, i.e., from 01.12.1987. This resulted in a situation where the applicant started drawing the pay of Rs.1,075/-, whereas Shri Prem Prakash was drawing lesser pay of Rs.1,050/-. This continued up to December 1987, when they parted the ways. While the salary of the applicant was fixed at Rs.1,075/-, that of Shri Prem Prakash became Rs.1,100/-. The salary of the applicant was enhanced to Rs.1,100/- in June 1988, but the salary of Shri Prem Prakash was enhanced to Rs.1,125/- from 01.12.1988 onwards. The same tendency continued for the rest of their career.

It is not as if the applicant was not aware of these discrepancies. In a way, it is on exercise of his option that such a discrepancy has arisen. Put it differently, the discrepancy arose on account of exercising of option by Shri Prem Prakash for fixation of pay coinciding with increment and the applicant opting his salary to be fixed on the date of promotion itself. The event that occurred in the year 1987, cannot be rectified at this stage. The first of the written representations made by the applicant was in the year 2011. Though he made reference to the alleged requests of the year 2004, 2007 and 2008, they are in the form of dak diaries and not written representations. The subsequent reminders are also in the form of dak diaries.

It is true that in certain cases, belated options were also given. For that purpose, it becomes necessary to verify as to whether the option was given at the relevant point of time at all, and whether there was any fault on the part of the employee concerned. Verification of the records becomes necessary. In the instant case, the event occurred in the year 1987 and rectification thereof, at this stage, would virtually become impossible. Added to that, it would open flood gates for digging up of old cases. If the relief is granted to one, there is no reason why this should be denied to others. It may lead to huge financial implications. Such a development cannot be permitted to take place on the basis of unverified records and unsubstantiated facts.

We do not find any merit in this OA. The same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.