Raj Kamal Verma vs Union Of India And Others

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has primarily prayed for the following reliefs:-

(i) That the impugned orders dated 28.01.2022, whereby the respondents has rejected the case of the petitioner for grant of higher pay scale in Pay Band 4 i.e. Rs. 37,400-67,000/- and withdraw the higher grade pay of Rs. 8700/- granted to the petitioner vide order 24.09.2014 and not fixing the pay of the petitioner as per Central Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules 2016 (7th CPC) w.e.f. 01.01.2016 may kindly be declared as illegal, harsh, arbitrary, unconstitutional, against the public policy and against the principles of natural justice & service jurisprudence and in violation of the law and justice.

(ii) That the impugned orders dated 28.01.2022 may kindly be quashed and set aside AND the petitioner may kindly beheld entitled for pay scale in Pay Band-4 i.e. Rs. 37,400-67,000/- AND Grade Pay of Rs. 8700, after five year of serve as Deputy Registrar w.e.f 01.07.2014, with all consequential benefits.

(iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to re-fix the pay of the petitioner in Pay Band 4 i.e. Rs. 37,400-67,000/- with grade pay of Rs. 8700/- w.e.f 01.07.2014 and revised the pay of the petitioner as per Central Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules 2016 (7th CPC) w.e.f. 01.01.2016 and to release due and admissible benefits and arrears to the petitioner, accordingly, alongwith interest at the earliest.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of Annexure P-17, dated 28.01.2022, in terms whereof the financial upgradation granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.07.2014 has been withdrawn on the ground that the same was not admissible to the petitioner as he was on deputation and in terms of the Recruitment Rules, the financial upgradation was permissible for the regular employees of the Institute only.

Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner, who was a permanent employee of the Horticulture Produce Marketing Corporation, was sent on deputation to the National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur, in the year 2009. While petitioner was serving in the said institution on deputation basis, in terms of Annexure P-4, dated 03.03.2014, he was appointed on deputation basis as a Deputy Registrar in the National Institute of Technology, Delhi. The petitioner served there as such on deputation basis till he superannuated on 30.04.2016 from the service. The grievance of the petitioner is that in terms of impugned order Annexure P-17, dated 28.05.2022, the financial upgradation, which was awarded to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.07.2014 has been withdrawn by assigning reasons that as the petitioner was appointed against the post of Deputy Registrar on deputation basis and as in terms of Recruitment Rules, the financial upgradation was permissible only in the case of regular employees of the Institute, therefore, the financial upgradation granted to the petitioner is bad and not in order.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith.

In view of the fact that the financial upgradation granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.07.2014 was withdrawn vide impugned communication only on the ground that as per Recruitment Rules, the financial upgradation could have been given to a regular employee and not to someone on deputation basis as was the case of the petitioner, this Court is not dwelling any further as far as other pleadings in the petition are concerned.

The Recruitment Rules for the post of Deputy Registrar are on record. They are appended with the petition as Annexure P-7. A perusal of these Rules demonstrates that the post of Deputy Registrar is a selection post, which is filled in 75% by way of direct recruitment and 25% by promotion, failing which, by deputation/contract and failing in both, by direct recruitment.

In the present case, the petitioner has been recruited to the post of Deputy Registrar by way of deputation. I have carefully perused the relevant Recruitment Rules and no part thereof creates any impediment or debars a person who has been appointed by way of deputation against the post of Deputy Registrar that such an incumbent is not eligible for any financial upgradation.

Therefore, withdrawal of financial upgradation on the reason that the Recruitment Rules to the post of Deputy Registrar do not provide for financial upgradation of an incumbent on deputation basis, is completely perverse and not sustainable in the eyes of law.

It may be clarified that because this is the only reason that has been assigned in the impugned communication for withdrawal of financial upgradation, therefore, this Court is not dwelling on other explanations that have been given in the pleadings.

A five Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, (1978) 1 Supreme Court Cases 405, has been pleased to hold that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and it cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise.

In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mohinder Singh Gill’s case (supra), on this short count, this petition succeeds. Annexure P-17, dated 28.01.2022, is quashed and set aside. Consequences to ensue. Other reliefs prayed for in the writ petition are left open and the petitioner may agitate the same in some other petition, if so advised. However, it is clarified that if the grant of financial upgradation was not permissible to the petitioner under any other provision of law, then, the respondents shall be at liberty to take a fresh decision in this regard but strictly in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.