Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 8914/2019
LOKPAL SINGH NEGI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sourabh Ahuja, Adv.
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel
Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
JUDGMENT
15.10.2024 C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This writ petition arises out of judgment dated 24 April 2019 passed by the Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principle Bench, New Delhi[1]. By the said judgment, the learned Tribunal decided a batch of Original Applications filed before it, of which OA 2693/2018 had been filed by the petitioner.
2. In an omnibus fashion, the learned Tribunal examined the aspect of whether a person who was asked to hold current duty charge of another post was entitled to the pay of the higher post. In deciding “the learned Tribunal”, hereinafter the OAs, unfortunately, the learned Tribunal, even while acknowledging, in para 3, that the “arrangement was slightly different in different cases”, has decided all the OAs on the basis of the look after charge assignment in the case of Mr. R.K. Sabharwal, the applicant in OA 2557/2017. This is clear from para 6 of the impugned judgment, which reads thus:
assigning any reason therefor and giving any prior notice; and
(vii) This look after arrangement is also subject to outcome of any court case pending which has effect on this order.
2. Consequent upon assigning look after charge, Sh. R. K. Sabharwal is hereby directed to report to Engg-in-Chief for further duties. This issues with the approval of the Commissioner." From this, it is evident that the applicant was holding the post of SE(C) on ad hoc basis, and he was yet to be appointed on regular basis on that post. It was only on account of administrative exigencies, that he was assigned the look after charge of the post of CE(C), lest the said office remained unattended to. The conditions incorporated therein are clear to the effect that he shall not be entitled to claim any benefit on account of such arrangement, and that he shall continue to draw the salary in the post which he is holding in substantive capacity.”
3. In the case of the present petitioner, no order, similar to that which has been passed in the case of Mr. R.K. Sabharwal, was issued. The order by which the petitioner was supposedly granted current duty charge of the post of Principal, reads thus: “The Principal Secretary (TTE) is pleased to order the following transfer/postings:- S.No. Name of the Officer Present posting Transferred to as Remarks
1. Mrs. N. Gupta (Officiating Principal) Officiating Principal, Ambedkar Polytechnic & BPIBS Aryabhat (Current duty charge) Vice Shri I.J. Garg, transferred
2. Shri I J Garg, Adhoc Principal Ad-hoc Aryabhat Ad-hoc BPIBS Vice Mrs. N. Gupta
3. Dr. (Mrs) Amita Dev, HOD (Computer Engg.) HOD (Computer Engg.), Ambedkar Insti. Of Technology Principal (current Ambedkar & HOD (Computer Engg.) of Ambedkar Instt. Of Technology Vice Mrs. N. Gupta transferred
4. Shri L. S Negi, Lecturer (Selection Grade) Lecturer (Selection Grade) (UC Civil Engg. Deptt. Pusa Principal (current GND Polytechnic. Vice Shri K.C. Chaudhary posted back. Shri K.C. Chaudhary, TPO is posted back to Aryabhat Polytechnic as TPO from where he is drawing his salary. Mrs. Meera Passi, HOD (Humanities/Sciences) will henceforth send proposals/reports relevant to her assignment through Principal, Aryabhat Polytechnic. These order shall come into force w.e.f. 01.08.2005. A compliance report should be furnished by all concerned officers by 01.08.2005 to the undersigned positively.”
4. The only reference to “current duty charge” in the case of the petitioner is in the parenthesised words against S.No. 4 in the table contained in the afore extracted office order dated 21 July 2005.
5. Mr. Ahuja, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, the petitioner was holding full charge of the post of Principal and was discharging all duties of the said post till his retirement on 30 September 2017.
6. Without entering into any other aspect of the matter, it is clear that the case of the petitioner deserves differential treatment as compared to the case of Mr. R.K. Sabharwal, which seems to have been treated as the representative case by the learned Tribunal. It may have to be considered as to whether the mere use of the words “current duty” charge in parenthesis against the petitioner’s name in the Office Order dated 21 July 2005 can be treated as “current duty charge” within the meaning of FR 49(v), so as to disentitle the petitioner to the pay of the higher post of the Principal.
7. Mr. Ahuja has also sought to submit that the ground taken by the respondent, not to grant the pay of Principal to the petitioner was that the petitioner did not possess the Ph.D. qualification, which according to the respondent was essential for the post of Principal. He submits that this ground is no longer tenable in view of the order passed by the Supreme Court in Gelus Ram Sahu v Dr. Surendra Kumar Singh[2].
8. We are not expressing any opinion on this aspect of the matter, as it has not been considered by the learned Tribunal at all. We are of the view that the learned Tribunal was not justified in disposing of the petitioner’s OA treating it as one in the batch of OAs, which was disposed of by the learned Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 24 April 2019.
9. Accordingly, the impugned judgment, insofar as it disposes of OA 2693/2018 filed by the petitioner, is quashed and set aside.
OA AIR 2020 SC 1203 2693/2018 stands remanded to the learned Tribunal for consideration and decision afresh in accordance with law after hearing the parties and in due compliance with the principles of natural justice.
10. Both sides will appear before the learned Tribunal on 4 November 2024.
11. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J. DR.