Deepaindra Kumar vs UOI & Ors.

Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman

The applicant is working as Income Tax Officer. He made a claim for upgradation of his pay structure by granting him the Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-, on completion of four years of service. His plea was rejected through order dated 16.10.2015 stating that the upgradation of the Grade Pay was with held on account of the fact that the sanction was accorded for his prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 by the DA. This OA is filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to extend him, the benefit of Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- and to declare the action of the respondents in withholding the vigilance clearance, as illegal and arbitrary.

The applicant contends that the very according of sanction for his prosecution was without basis and at any rate the upgradation cannot be withheld on account of that reason.

The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit. They took the plea that though a specific order was passed rejecting the claim of the applicant, but the same is not challenged in the OA. It is also stated that once the applicant is facing prosecution, the question of extending him, the benefit of upgradation does not arise.

We heard Sh.M.K.Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant and Sh.M.S.Reen, learned counsel for the respondents.

The applicant faced the disciplinary proceedings as well as the criminal proceedings. At one stage he was also placed under suspension. Much of the emphasis of the applicant is on the fact that the suspension was reckoned at a later stage. However, the respondents have taken into account, the fact that sanction was accorded for prosecution, and denied the upgradation. In case the applicant felt aggrieved by the order of denial, he ought to have challenged it. No challenge is made to the said order in this OA. Further the applicant sought a direction to the respondents, to give vigilance clearance. The question of issuing such a direction does not arise, as long as he is facing prosecution and disciplinary proceedings. We are not inclined to grant any relief in this OA.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that his client would make a comprehensive representation narrating the subsequent developments. Nothing prevents the applicant from making such a representation.

We, therefore, dismiss the OA, but leaving it open to the applicant to make a representation if any developments have taken place in his favour, during the pendency of the OA. In case, such a representation is made, the respondents shall consider the same on its own merits, at the earliest.