SUB-INSPECTOR (MIN) DEOVERT UPADHYAY & ORS. vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~74 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 407/2017 SUB-INSPECTOR (MIN) DEOVERT UPADHYAY & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Eshna Kumar and Mr. M. Poudivwibou, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Monika Arora, CGSC with Ms. Anamika Thakur, Mr. Subhrodeep Saha and Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Advs. for UOI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 22.04.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. The issue in controversy in this case is brief, and no detailed allusion to facts is necessary. 2. The pay of the petitioners, who were then working as Assistant Sub Inspector1 in the Central Industrial Security Force2, was stepped up, under FR 27, to be at par with their juniors, by order dated 16 September 1990. The respondent was also directed to be granted financial benefits under the Assured Career Progression Scheme3 w.e.f. 16 September 2002, reckoning his date of appointment as 16 1 “ASI”, hereinafter 2 “CISF”, hereinafter 3 “ACP Scheme”, hereinafter Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT W.P.(C) 407/2017 Page 1 of 5 KUMAR Signing Date:25.04.2025 18:52:25 September 1990. 3. However, subsequently by order dated 9 June 2016, the respondents re-fixed the petitioners’ pay and change their date of appointment from 16 September 1990 to 31 October 1991. This was apparently on the ground that owing to some administrative lapse, erroneous benefits under FR 27 have been given to the petitioners. 4. It is an admitted position that, before doing so, no notice was issued to the petitioners at any point of time. 5. Subsequently, by order dated 25 October 2016, the respondents also directed recovery, from the petitioners, of excess amounts allegedly paid to the petitioners. 6. Aggrieved thereby, the petition