PRAMATH PATNAIK,J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing order as contained in letter dated 01.08.2008 whereby representation of the petitioner for re-fixation of his pay-scale along with six additional increments for the services rendered under Armed Force has been denied and; further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to fix the petitioner's pay in the revised pay-scale and to pay all consequential benefits.
(2.) The factual matrix, as delineated in the writ application, in a nutshell, is that petitioner initially joined as Short Service Commission Officer in Indian Army in May, 1988 and after completion of Short Service contractual period, the petitioner was released from service during extension of service on 29.05.1994. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for and joined as Assistant Commandant in C.I.S.F. on 12.09.1997. It has been averred that after joining, the petitioner in accordance with Rule 8 of Chapter II of Central Civil Service (Fixation of pay of re-employed Officers) Orders, 1986 circulated vide Deptt. Of Personnel and Training, O and M dated 31.07.1986, submitted an application for fixation of pay vide application dated 12.03.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner again submitted a representation before Director General, CISF to grant him similar benefits as provided under Rule 8 in compliance of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide its judgment dated 31.08.2007 in favour of one similarly situated personnel, Mr. P. Raman thereupon the petitioner was intimated that his matter has been taken up by the Ministry of Home Affairs and decision thereupon shall be communicated, but, when it did not evoke any response, the petitioner represented the department vide letter dated 17.01.2008, but, he was shocked to receive communication dated 01.08.2008 whereby his request was turned down with the observations that "Since the judgment of the High Court was implemented as an exception specifically to the petitioner, there is no base for its general application". Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has approached this Court for redressal of his grievances.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of six additional increments in terms of Rule 8 of the Central Civil Services Orders, 1986 for having served under the Indian Army for six years before he joined the present service under C.I.S.F. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner deserves to be treated at par with the case of Shri P. Raman, who has been granted the said benefit by the C.I.S.F. Headquarters on the direction of Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India in January, 2008 pursuant to judgment dated 31.08.2007 passed in W.P. (C) No. 14301 of 2004 by a Division Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the petitioner is being discriminated in a wholly arbitrary manner contrary to settled principles of law as laid down by Hon'ble Court whereby differential treatment cannot be made in respect of similarly placed persons in service jurisprudence only because the other person has approached the Court and an order has been passed in his favour.;