Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh v. Som Nath & Ors.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. RN Raina, Advocate for the petitioner

To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3227 and 3240 of 2010 as both the petitions arise from a common order dated

24.7.2008 (P.1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal') in OA Nos. 706 and 800 CH of 2006. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents joined as Sectional Officer with the petitioner- Administration in the year 1972. The respondents were designated as Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 26.2.2001 but they continued to hold the post of Sectional Officer. On 17.12.1998 the petitioner- Administration adopted the Assured Career Progression Scheme (for brevity 'the Scheme') as promulgated by the Punjab Government on

25.9.1998 which was effective from 1.1.1996. Under this Scheme the employees were to be granted proficiency step up on completion of 8,16,24 and 32 years of service etc. i.e. benefit of one additional increment. The CWP No. 3227 CAT of 2010 2 respondents were accordingly granted the benefits of proficiency step up with effect from 1996 on completion of 24 years of service. However, on

19.1.2006, the petitioner- Administration issued a letter indicating that the respondents are not entitled to the proficiency step up. In that regard reliance was placed on instructions/letter dated 27.6.2000 (A.7). Accordingly, vide order dated 21.11.2006 the pay of the respondents was reduced by way of withdrawing the benefit of one increment granted to them on completion of 24 years of service. Aggrieved against the action of the petitioner- Administration, the respondents filed Original Application before the Tribunal and vide impugned order the Tribunal partially allowed the Original Application holding that the benefit already granted to the respondents under the scheme of 1998 cannot be taken away from them. The Tribunal examined the issue in detail and recorded a categorical finding that the Order dated 27.6.2000 did not envisage that benefits granted under 1998 Scheme are to be recovered from the beneficiaries. In that regard, the Tribunal observed that the Order was not applicable on such employees because the benefits already granted to them under the 1998 Scheme became their vested right. For the aforesaid proposition, the Tribunal placed reliance on a Constitution Bench judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman Railway Board and others v. C.R.Rangadhamaiah and others 1997(4) SLR 759. The further observations of the Tribunal in paras 10 and 11 reads as under: “ 10. We thus, hold that the grant of PSU to the applicants on completion of 24 years of service under the 1998 Scheme was in order as this benefit was otherwise permissible on completion of 16 years of service only. In so far as the CWP No. 3227 CAT of 2010 3 clarification dated 5.2.2003, Annexure R/3 is concerned, the same prima facie appears to be against the basic aim and intention of the scheme of 1998. We find support for this view from the other clarifications, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Punjab Government, Annexure A/9 in the case of Harbans Singh and that of the Department of Finance, Punjab Government ( Annexure A-11) in respect of S.K.Sachdeva, do indicate that the category of applicants was covered under the scheme of 1998.

In these circumstances, it is held that the scheme of 2000 is to be applied prospectively only not retrospectively, so as to take away benefit of 1998 scheme also. In this view of the matter, we find that the impugned orders dated 29.6.2006 (Annexure A.1) and 17.10.2006 (Annexure A.2) in OA No. 706 -CH-2006 and 21.11.2006 (Annexure A.1) and 21.11.2006 (Annexure A1/1) in OA No. 800 CH -2006 are quashed and set aside. It is held that the benefit of PSU already granted to the applicants under scheme of 1998, cannot be taken away from them. The recovery from them has not been made till date in view of interim orders passed by this Bench. The same are made absolutely. OA stands partly allowed to that extent accordingly. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.” We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and find that the view taken by the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting admission of the petition. A perusal of Clause 12 of the Order would show that the decision contained in that Order was to take CWP No. 3227 CAT of 2010 4 effect from the date of issuance of the Order removing anomaly dated

23.6.2000 (R.1). It would thus be apparent that the decision was to apply from the date of issuance of the Order and not from a retrospective date. Therefore, it follows that the aforesaid Order was not to regulate the rights already conferred which have become vested right as per the views expressed by the Constitution Bench in the case of C.R.Rangadhamaiah and others' case (supra). It would be appropriate to read few lines of para 21 of the judgement rendered by the Constitution Bench which are to the effect that ' a rule which seeks to reverse from an anterior date a benefit which has been granted or availed, e.g., promotion or pay scale, can be assailed as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution to the extent it operates retrospectively.' However, in the present case, neither there is any retrospective effect given to the Order removing anomaly nor any intendment from the Order is inferable. The writ petition is without any merit and is thus liable to be dismissed. For the reasons afore mentioned these petitions fail and the same are dismissed. A copy of this order be placed on the record of the connected case.

23.2.2010 (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jitendra Chauhan) Judge