W.P.(C)--13318/2005. Case: SH. TULE RAM YADAV & ANR. Vs. THE COMMISSIONER & ORS.. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | W.P.(C)--13318/2005 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | January 23, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.13318-19/2005 % 23rd January, 2017 SH. TULE RAM YADAV & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: None.
versus
THE COMMISSIONER & ORS. ..... Respondent Through: None.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
-
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution India is filed by two petitioners, Sh. Tule Ram Yadav being petiti no.1 and Sh. Jailal Yadav being petitioner no.2. Petitioners claim their pay scales as per the 4th Pay Commission Report should have 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 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 counter affidavit the respondents have stated that the salary of 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 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 per the 4th Pay Commission Report, and which is supported by documents, no rejoinder affidavit was filed by the petitioners.
-
Accordingly, petitioners having already been granted 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 be granted to the petitioners because respondents have specifically pleaded and filed documents to show payment to the petitioners as 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 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial