Malkhan Singh & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J

C.M. Appln. Nos.17711/2020 & 17712/2020 (Exemption from filing the fair typed copies of dim annexures and the documents and from

filing duly affirmed affidavit(s) and court fees)

Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per the extant rules.

The applications are disposed of.

W.P. (C) 4905/2020

The 145 petitioners, being Head Constables (Driver/Driver-cum-Pump Operators) in the respondents Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), have

preferred this petition impugning the orders dated 26th May, 2020 and 23rd June, 2020 of rejection of their representations to the respondents CISF, to

grant to them the same benefit as granted to the petitioners similarly placed as the petitioners herein vide judgment dated 30th November, 2018 in

W.P.(C) No.10660/2016 titled Vinoj V.V. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

The counsel for the respondents CISF appears on advance notice.

In the last few months, several petitions, petitioners wherein were claiming the same benefit as granted in Vinoj V.V. supra have been coming

before us and we have been disposing of the same by directing the respondents to grant to the petitioners therein the same benefits as granted in Vinoj

V.V. supra if the petitioners in each of these petitions were found to be similarly placed as petitioners in Vinoj V.V. supra and if not, directing the

respondents to give reasons in writing why the petitioner/s was/were not entitled to the benefit of Vinoj V.V. supra.

The aforesaid conduct of the respondents CISF of, in spite of those claiming to be similarly placed as the petitioners in Vinoj V.V. supra preferring

representations, claiming the same reliefs as granted in Vinoj V.V. supra, dismissing the said representations, merely by stating that nobody else other

than the petitioners in Vinoj V.V. supra had been granted the relief, has disturbed us. In our view, at least personnel of the Armed Forces should not

be compelled to approach the Courts, once the Court has already in a petition filed by some of them, ordered a particular relief or directed a particular

entitlement.

The counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 34 7to contend that

in spite of the Supreme Court clearly spelling out that the benefit has to be granted to all similarly placed i.e. even to those not petitioners before the

Court, the respondents continue to compel the petitioners, who are posted at far off places, to approach the Courts, to be entitled to the benefit.

The counsel for the respondents CISF has fairly stated that this should not be the state of affairs.

To prevent such status from continuing, we direct the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs to bestow attention to the aforesaid anomaly prevalent

and to ensure that the personnel of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) who are entitled to a relief on the basis of judgments in petitions filed

by those similarly placed, are granted the said relief without each of them, to their extreme hardship, being required to approach the Courts. The

Director General, CISF is also directed to ensure that in future, personnel preferring representations for relief in accordance with the judgments in the

case of some of the personnel and having general application, are not compelled to approach the Courts for being entitled to the same relief.

The orders dated 26th May, 2020 and 23rd June, 2020, Annexure-P1 to the petition, of rejection of the representations of the petitioners, merely on

the ground of the relief in Vinoj V.V. supra being not available to any other personnel even if similarly placed as the petitioners in Vinoj V.V. supra,

are accordingly quashed.

The respondents CISF are directed to, within six weeks of today study the case of each of the petitioners and to, within the said period of six

weeks grant to the petitioners/such of the petitioners who are found to be similarly placed as the petitioners in Vinoj V.V. supra, the same relief as

granted vide judgment dated 30th November, 2018 in W.P.(C) No.10660/2016 including of payment of arrears. If the petitioners or any of them are

not found to be similarly placed as the petitioners in Vinoj V.V. supra, the respondents to, within the said period of six weeks inform to the

petitioners/such of the petitioners who are not found entitled to the relief, the reasons in writing therefor. We make it clear that if there is any non-

compliance, the respondents, besides being liable for the costs of litigation which the petitioners have been forced to undertake, would also be liable for

interest at such rate as may be imposed for delay in payment.

The petition is disposed of.