RAVINDRA SINGH vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~55 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 20.02.2025 + W.P.(C) 2239/2025 RAVINDRA SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr.P. Sureshan, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr.Sarvan Kumar, SPC with Ms.Mahamaya Chatterjee, GP for UOI AC/CISF G. S. Rathore and SI/CISF Prahlad Devenda CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL) CM APPL. 10457/2025 & CM APPL. 10458/2025 (Exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 2239/2025 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the Letter dated 08.11.2024 issued by the respondents, whereby the request of the petitioner for grant of an increment due on 01.07.2011 has been rejected by stating that he had not completed six months of service in the Revised Pay Structure as on 01.07.2011 as required in Rule 10 of the CCS Revised Pension Rules-2008 and the DoE’s Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2239/2025 Page 1 of 5 By:SUNIL Signing Date:25.02.2025 11:08:12 Circular dated 19.03.2012 and, therefore, is not entitled to the increment. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in similar facts relating to a batchmate of the petitioner, this Court by its Order dated 24.07.2019 in W.P.(C) 6747/2018 titled, ‘Vijay Das v. Director General Central Industrial Security Force & Ors.’ has granted the relief to the petitioner therein, by observing as under: “5. Having heard learned counsel, we are inclined to allow the petition, as claimed. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer only on account of the default of the respondents in belatedly issuing appointment letter to him. There is no reason attributable by the respondents for which the petitioner could be held responsible for delayed issuan