W.P.(C) No.13318-19/05. Case: Sh. Tule Ram Yadav & Anr. Vs The Commissioner & Ors.. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | W.P.(C) No.13318-19/05 |
| Judges | Valmiki J. Mehta, J. |
| Issue | Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 3; Constitution of India - Article 226 |
| Judgement Date | January 23, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
Judgment:
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.
-
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by two petitioners, Sh. Tule Ram Yadav being petitioner no.1 and Sh. Jailal Yadav being petitioner no.2. Petitioners claim that their pay scales as per the 4th Pay Commission Report should have been fixed at Rs.1640-2900/- but the respondents have wrongly fixed their pay in the scale of Rs.1400-2600/-.
-
In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, respondents have specifically pleaded that pay scales of the petitioners have been fixed not at Rs.1400-2600/- w.e.f 1.1.1986 as pleaded by the petitioners, but, pay scale of both the petitioners was fixed at Rs.1640-2900/- and which is the claim prayed by the petitioners. In fact, in the counter affidavit the respondents have stated that the salary of the petitioner no.1 was fixed at Rs.2060/- w.e.f 1.1.1986, Rs.2120/- w.e.f 1.1.1987, Rs.2240/- w.e.f 1.1.1989 and so on whereby the total salary paid to the petitioner no.1 was Rs.8300/- w.e.f 1.1.1996. Respondents have also attached the service records and the relevant office orders for showing correct payment to the petitioner no.1/Sh. Tule Ram Yadav.
-
In spite of categorical statements made in the counter affidavit of the respondents that petitioners have got all their benefits as per the 4th Pay Commission Report, and which is supported by the documents, no rejoinder affidavit was filed by the petitioners.
-
Accordingly, petitioners having already been granted the reliefs as claimed in this writ petition and their pay scales have been rightly fixed as per the 4th Pay Commission Report, no further relief can be granted to the petitioners because respondents have specifically pleaded and filed documents to show payment to the petitioners as per the 4th Pay Commission Report.
-
There is another reason for dismissing of the writ petition because petitioner no.1/Sh. Tule Ram Yadav retired on 31.3.1996 and petitioner no.2/Sh. Jailal Yadav retired on 30.6.2001. This writ petition however has been filed only much later in May, 2005, and therefore, the reliefs claimed by the petitioners are clearly barred by limitation, because in order to succeed, the petitioners had to challenge a specific order allegedly giving wrong pay scales within the limitation period of three years (though of course petitioners have been given correct pay scales as detailed in the counter affidavit of the respondents) inasmuch as, the underlying principles of...
To continue reading
Request your trial