AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
The present Review Application (RA) has been filed by the review applicants seeking review of Tribunal’s order dated 14.05.2026 in OA No.83/2022 and prays that the aforementioned OA should be allowed.
OA No.83/2022 was filed by the present review applicants in the said OA, seeking the following relief:
“a. quash and set aside the impugned Communication/Order dated 26.11.2019 issued by the Respondent No.2 - Safdarjung Hospital & V.M.M.C. New Delhi-110029;
aa. quash and set aside the Impugned Order No.3-2/2016-Admn.III (N) dated 21.02.2020 passed by Respondent No.2 Medical Superintendent, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi-110029;
b. direct the Respondents to correctly revise/re-fix pay of the Applicants:-
(1)at Rs.13,860/- with GP Rs.4600/- Rs.18,460/- in PB-2 in corresponding revised pay structure Rs.9300-34800 + GP Rs.4600 for Nursing Officer alongwith benefit of bunching as minimum revised basic pay as on 01.01.2006 in terms of Rule 7(I)A(i) & (ii) of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules 2008 and Office Memorandum dated 09.08.2016:
(ii)at Rs. 13,950/- with GP Rs. 4800/- Rs. 18,750/- in PB-2 in corresponding revised pay structure Rs.9300-34800 + GP Rs 4800/- for Senior Nursing Officer alongwith benefit of bunching as minimum revised basic pay as on 01.01.2006 in terms of Rule 7(1)A(i) & (ii) of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules 2008 and Office Memorandum dated 09.08.2016;
(iii)at Rs. 15600 Grade Pay Rs.5400 Rs.21000 in PB-3 of Assistant Nursing Superintendent alongwith benefit of bunching as minimum revised basic pay as on 01.01.2006 in terms of Rule 7(1)A(i) & (ii) of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules 2008 and Office Memorandum dated 09.08.2016 in a time bound manner and in the light of judgment dated 27.03.2015 passed in OA No.98/2014, Malbika Deb Gupta Vs. Union of India & Ors. and judgment dated 04.11.2016 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No.8058/2015; Union of India Vs. Malbika Deb Gupta;
c. direct the Respondents to pay arrears of revised/re-fixed pay (as per prayer (a) in a time bound manner;
d. direct the Respondents to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the arrears of pay payable to the Applicants w.e.f. 29.08.2008 i.e. the date of Gazette Notification till the date of actual disbursement of arrears to the Applicants;
d. grant such and further relief as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
After issuance of notices to the respondents in the said OA and completing the pleadings, the OA was finally heard on 15.04.2026 along with OA No.4039/2016. At the time of final hearing, learned counsel on behalf of both the parties interchangeably returned to pleading in either of the OAs. On account of this, facts from both the OAs, i.e., OA No.83/2022 and OA No.4039/2016 have been culled on the fundamental issues. The issue has been clearly mentioned in the first sentence of paragraph 5.2 under heading “Analysis” in both the orders dated 14.05.2026 in respect of OA No.83/2022 and OA No.4039/2016. Incidentally, the counsel for the applicants in both the OAs was the same and he argued both OAs taking one of the OAs as the basis for his averments. Mr. Amit Yadav was the lead counsel for the respondents.
This Tribunal vide orders dated 14.05.2025 passed the following order:
“5.13In view of above, the present OA is partially allowed. The respondents are directed to modify the order dated 15.01.2021 in the following manner:-
(i)Let the respondents arrive at the pre-revised scale of the applicants as on 01.01.2006 and multiply with a factor of 1.86 to arrive at a product. The product so arrived shall be compared with the entry level pay of Rs. 17140 (12450+GP 4600) as on 01.01.2006. If the product is less than Rs. 17140/- the applicants shall be granted the revised pay as on 01.01.2006 at Rs. 17140/-. In case the product is more than Rs. 17140/- then the product shall be retained as revised pay at the appropriate level as per the PB 9300-13400/-. This exercise shall be completed by the respondents within the period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Pending MA also stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.”
The present review applicants have sought review of the said order dated 14.05.2025 on the following grounds:
“(i)Attribution to the Petitioners/Applicants of an argument (multiplication of Rs.7,450/- by 1.86) never pleaded or advanced by them, which argument was expressly disclaimed in the Written Submissions filed on record, and then rejecting the OA on the basis of this non-existent argument;
(ii)Hon’ble Tribunal vide impugned order dated 14.05.2026 has neither considered and addressed nor decided the pleadings related to prayers (b) (ii) & (i) of Nursing Sister/ Senior Nursing Oficer and Assistant Nursing Superintendent;
(iii)Misreading and misconstruction of the Order dated 27.03.2015 in Malbika Deb Gupta Vs. Union of India (OA No.98/2014), which was upheld by the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court, and which directed fixation at Rs. 13,860/- + GP Rs.4,600/- = Rs.18,460/-;
(iv)Incorrect application of OM dated 28.09.2018 (which is expressly limited to Part-A of the First Schedule) to the Petitioners/Applicants whose pay scale falls exclusively under Part-B of the First Schedule;
(v)Non-application and incorrect application of Note 2A below Rule 7 and Illustration 4A to the Explanatory Memorandum of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 the specific statutory provision governing upgradation cases;
(vi)Several typographical errors have crept in the impugned order dated 14.05.2026 passed in the present OA;
(vii)Directions in the Impugned Order contrary to the settled and binding legal position laid down by the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court in multiple orders on record; and
(viii)No direction or reasoning on the prayer for interest on arrears, despite the specific statutory basis under Rule 14 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 and Article 300A of the Constitution of India.”
In paragraph 3.10 of the RA, the Review Applicants have mentioned details of typographical errors as contained in the Tabular presentation. The detailed paper-book of the OA was perused and the typographical errors are admitted.
In paragraph 3.1, the Review Applicants mention:
“HON’BLE TRIBUNAL IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS ATTRIBUTED TO PETITONERS/ APPLICNTS AN ARGUMENT/PLEA OF MULTIPLYING Rs.7,450/- BY 1.86, WHICH WAS NEITHER PLEADED NOR ARGUED BY THE PETITIONERS/ APPLICANTS:”
A detailed perusal of the pleadings was again gone through. From the pleadings in the OA, this Tribunal inferred that the applicants in the OA have indirectly sought refixation of pay of the applicants at Rs.13,860/- with Grade Pay of Rs.4600 in PB-2 as on 01.01.2006 as per CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 and OM dated 09.08.2016. Such a pay fixation is possible when the revised pay of the applicants is converted to Rs.7450/- as on 01.01.2006 and then re-converted to the pay as on 01.01.2006 by multiplying Rs.7450 with 1.86 which is Rs.13,857, i.e. approximately Rs.13,860/-. Hence, the inference by this Tribunal is from the pleadings by the applicants read with relief paragraphs. Hence, there is no apparent error of facts on face of records of the OA.
In paragraph 3.2 the Review Applicants have stated:
“HON’BLE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 5.9 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS RECORDED AND QUOTED FROM THE ORDER OF MALBIKA DEV GUPTA WHICH IS IN FACT NON-EXISTENT IN THE ORDER OF MALBIKA DEB GUPTA.”
This Tribunal has not stated that paragraph 5.9 is quoted from Malbika Dev Gupta vs. Union of India. Paragraph 5.9 is reproduced below:
“5.9In Malbika Dev Gupta (Supra) case, this Tribunal has not accepted that each and every staff nurse, irrespective of the pre-revised pay scale shall be entitled revised pay as on 01.01.2006 by multiplying Rs. 7450/-with multiplier 1.86 plus grade pay of Rs 4600/-. It has reiterated the Note 2 under Rule 7 of CCS(RP) Rules 2008, when it states that “at least the staff nurses should get a minimum of Rs 17410/- (Rs. 12540 plus Rs. 4600) at par with direct recruits as on 01.01.2006”. This has been reiterated in Department of Expenditure OM dated 29.09.2018.”
In the above paragraph there is a reference to Malbika Dev Gupta (supra) case. It never stated that the paragraph is quoted from the order/judgment in Malbika Dev Gupta (supra) case.
It is out rightly misconceived on the part of the Review-applicants to allege such incorrect insinuation to the Tribunal. The Review Applicants and their counsel should have been more careful before alleging in such manner.
In paragraph-3.3, the Review Applicants have stated:
“HON’BLE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED ANY DEALT WITH PLEADINGS RELATED TO PRAYER (b) (ii) & (iii) AND PRAYER ITSELF.
A. That the Petitioner/Applicants in para 2,4.7,4.7.1,4.7.4,4.7.5 and 4.7.7 have specifically pleaded regarding wrong and incorrect fixation of revised pay of Nursing Sister/Senior Nursing Officer and Assistant Nursing Superintendent as on 01.01.2006 by the Respondents. Petitioners/Applicants have further taken grounds in para 5.9, 5.10 and 5.15 in this regard. On the basis of pleadings and grounds of the present OA as referred in aforesaid paragraphs, Petitioners/ Applicants have specifically prayed for correct fixation of revised pay of Nursing Sister/Senior Nursing Officer and Assistant Nursing Superintendent as on 01.01.2006 as under:-
“b. direct the Respondents to correctly revise/re-fix pay of the corresponding revised pay structure Rs.9300-34800+GP Rs.4800/- for Senior Nursing Officer alongwith benefit of bunching as minimum revised basic pay as on 01.01.2006 in terms of Rule 7 (1)(A)(i)&(ii) of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 and Office Memorandum dated 09.08.2016;
(iii)at Rs.15600+Grade Pay Rs.5400-Rs.21000 in PB-3 of Assistant Nursing Superintendent alongwith benefit of bunching as minimum revised basic pay as on 01.01.2006 in terms of Rule 7(1)A(i)&(ii) of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 and Office Memorandum dated 09.08.2016 in a time bound manner and in the light of judgment dated 27.03.2015 passed in OA No.98/2014; Malbika Deb Gupta Vs. Union of India & Ors.. and judgment dated 04.11.2016 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No.8058/2015; Union of India Vs. Malbika Deb Gupta.”
The Tribunal, after perusing entire records of the OA and submissions by both the parties, has given its findings. It is not correct that the above pleadings by the applicants in the OA were not considered because the Tribunal has not specifically quoted each of the paragraphs and not given its finding. A judgment/order should be read in its entirety and the reasoning arrived at a particular conclusion. The Tribunal is not warranted to deal each and every paragraph in the pleadings in the OA and is not bound to give reasons for not dealing with other reliefs which follow from a fundamental relief. When the foundation collapses, the entire structure collapses. This Tribunal again reiterates that all the materials placed on record by both the parties and their submissions have been carefully gone through/heard, and after appreciating all these and relying on the relevant and specific parties, the final order has been given.
In para 3.4 of the RA the review-applicants have
mentioned “HON’BLE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 4.1 AND 5.5 OF
THE IMPGUEND ORDER HAS QUOTED PARA 10 & 4.2 –4.4 OF COUNTER REPLY AFFIDAVIT WHICH ARE IN FACT NON-EXISTENT IN COUNTER REPLY AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDENTS:”
The paragraph 4.1 of the order dated 14.05.2026 states “He referred to Paragraph 10 of the Counter affidavit filed by the respondents on 16.03.2021 which reads as follows:
“10.That in case of Staff Nurses, the pre revised scale was 5000-8000 merged with 6500-10500 and then upgraded to the next higher pay band PB-2 with grade pay of Rs. 4600/- corresponding to the pre-revised scale of Rs. 7450-11500. In this regard, the calculation according to illustration 4A is as under:-
| 1. | Existing Scale of Pay | Rs. 5000-8000 (corresponding Grade Pay Rs. 4200) |
| 2. | Pay Band applicable | PB2 Rs. 9300-34800 |
| 3. | Upgraded to the scale pay | Rs. 7450-11500 (corresponding Grade Pay Rs. 4600) |
| 4. | Existing Basic pay as on 01.01.2006 | Rs. 5000 |
| 5. | Pay after multiplication by factor of 1.86 | Rs. 9300 (Round of to 9300) |
| 6. | Pay in the Pay Band PB2 | Rs. 9300 |
| 7. | Pay in the pay band after including benefit of bunching in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 5000-8000, if/admissible | Rs. 9300 (fitment table, page-17) |
| 8. | Grade Pay attached to the scale of Rs. 7450-11500 | Rs. 4600 |
| 9. | Revised basic pay total of pay in pay band and grade pay | Rs. 13900 |
There is a typographical error. However, this divergence in respect of facts related to the present OA was extracted from other OA where the issue was substantially the same. It should be read as “He referred to order dated 12.10.2020 by the respondents placed at Annexure A-3 (Colly.) in OA No.4039/2016” which reads:
“And whereas in case of Staff Nurse, the pre-revised scale was 5000-8000 merged with 6500-10500 and then upgraded to the next higher pay band PB-2 with grade pay of Rs.4600/- corresponding to the pre-revised scale of Rs.7450-11500. In this regard, the calculation according to Illustration 4A is as under:-
| 1. | Existing Scale of Pay | Rs. 5000-8000 (corresponding Grade Pay Rs. 4200) |
| 2. | Pay Band applicable | PB2 Rs. 9300-34800 |
| 3. | Upgraded to the scale pay | Rs. 7450-11500 (corresponding Grade Pay Rs. 4600) |
| 4. | Existing Basic pay as on 01.01.2006 | Rs. 5000 |
| 5. | Pay after multiplication by factor of 1.86 | Rs. 9300 (Round of to 9300) |
| 6. | Pay in the Pay Band PB2 | Rs. 9300 |
| 7. | Pay in the pay band after including benefit of bunching in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 5000-8000, if/admissible | Rs. 9300 (fitment table, page-17) |
| 8. | Grade Pay attached to the scale of Rs. 7450-11500 | Rs. 4600 |
| 9. | Revised basic pay total of pay in pay band and grade pay | Rs. 13900 |
As this refers to the pleadings in the other OA, which was read and argued simultaneously by the rival counsels, the typographical/incorrect reference error crept in the above manner.
Registry is directed to amend the paragraph as above.
However, it is again the view of the Tribunal that this typographical/incorrect reference does not in any way impact the analysis and conclusion in order dated 14.05.2026 in OA No.83/2022 in respect of which the present RA is filed.
The review applicants in paragraph 3.5 have stated “HON’BLE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 2.7 AND 3.1 OF IMPUGNED ORDER HAS RECORDED FACTUALLY WORNG AND INCORRECT STATEMENT. It has been further stated that the extracts are neither part of reply affidavit of the respondents nor to the petitioners in the present case.”
It is stated that these facts were culled out from the pleadings in both the OAs, OA No.83/2002 and OA No.4039/2016, which are argued simultaneously. The Tribunal again reiterates that the material placed on record by both the parties, have been gone through and after appreciating them and relying on the relevant and specific portion, the final conclusion has been arrived.
The averments by the Review-applicants in paragraphs 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 and 3.9 amounts to re-arguing the case and insisting on a particular way of interpretation which suits to the desire and liking of the review-applicants. These refer to neither apparent error of facts or law on face of record. A differing view on a particular issue or differing interpretation of a particular judgment by the review applicants is not a valid reason for accepting the RA.
In view of the above, the present RA is partially allowed. The typographical errors, as mentioned in paragraphs 5 and 9 above, are admitted and the Registry is directed to carry out/incorporate the aforesaid typographical errors/ corrections in the order dated 14.05.2026 and upload the amended order.
The RA is disposed of in the above manner by way of circulation.