AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A):):-
In the present Original Application, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant hahas prayed for the following reliefs:
“(i)That the Hon'ble Tribunal may further graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 19.9.2025 (A/1), order dt.21.11.2025(A/2), order dated 10.8.2026(A/3) and order dated 11.8.2026(Annex.A/4)) declaring to the effect that same are illegal, arbitrary and against the law and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to restore the pay of the applicants after counting their adhoc service (from the date of his initial appointment) from due date as per scheme with all the consequential benefits.
(ii)That the Hon'ble Tribunal may further graciously be pleased to pass an order directing the respondents to treat the regularization of the service of the applicant from the date of his initial appointment on adhoc basis for all the purposes with all consequential benefits.
(iii)That the Hon'ble Tribunal may further graciously be pleased to pass an order directing the respondents to refund the recovered amount if any from the applicant along with interest.
(iv)Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicants along with the costs of limitation.”
Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present O.A. is filed against the order dated 19.09.2025 (Annex. A/1), 21.11.2025 (Annex. A/2), 10.08.2026 (Annex. A/3) and order dated 11.08.2026 (Annex. A/4) by which the respondents decided to revert the applicant by way of changing their date of granting financial upgradation under ACP/MACP Scheme, by ignoring the adhoc service of the applicants, without given any reason and justification and also decided to recover the alleged over payment of Rs. 28,45,927/- for difference of pay and allowances during the period from 06.08.2005 to 31.07.2026 which is illegal, arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice.
He submits that the applicant was initially appointed as Research Assistant (Chemistry) against a regular sanctioned post w.e.f. 06.08.1993 pursuant to an open advertisement and selection by the competent Selection Committee. However, despite being selected against the regular sanctioned post, the applicant was initially appointed on an ad-hoc basis. Subsequently, on the basis of the same Selection Committee’s recommendation, his services were regularized w.e.f. 18.08.1999. He was thereafter promoted to the post of Research Officer (Chemistry) w.e.f. 28.10.2015 and has continued to work on the said post.
Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to a Circular No. R.13016/16/96--UD of the Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, subject Career Advancement of employees working in Central Council for Research in Unani Medicine highlighting para ‘b’, which reads as under:
“b. Posts which are lying vacant for more than one year and which are to be filled by promotion existing or consequent on the suggestions mentioned above, may be filled immediately. Further, the resultant vacancies in the lowest grade of the hierarchy may be abolished. However, promotion will be made on the basis of the eligibility conditions mentioned in the Recruitment Rules. Since in a number of categories of posts, Officers/Staff has to be on adhoc service for quite a long time before regularization the regular and adhoc service may be taken into account towards eligibility of service conditions, wherever necessary without disturbing seniority.”
Learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn my attention to the order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1043/2026 pronounced on 09.09.2025 titled Dr. Mustehasan and Ors. vs. Union of India and Anr., which reads as under:
“16.In the result, for the forgoing reasons, the OA succeeds with the following directions:-
(i)The impugned orders dated 11.11.2022 & 21.12.2022 (Annexure A/1) are quashed qua the applicants to the extent only by which the respondents have not counted the adhoc service of the applicants while granting in-situ financial up-gradation;
(ii)The respondents are directed to re-examine the cases of the applicants for grant of in-situ promotion/upgradation by counting their ad-hoc service keeping in view the above observations in mind; and thereafter grant all extend consequential benefits;
(iii)The respondents are directed to comply with the aforesaid directions as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.
17.No order as to costs.
18.Pending MA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.”
He has also drawn my attention to the order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 3328/2026 dated 02.09.2026 titled Mrs. Kiran Negi vs. Union of India and Anr., which reads as under:
“4.However, at the admission stage, without going into the merits of the case, the O.A. is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to dispose of the pending representations of the applicant dated 30.09.2025 and 10.08.2026 by way of a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible and preferably within four weeks' from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is further directed that till the above order is complied with, the respondents are restrained from doing the proposed recovery.
5.The O.A. stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order to costs.”
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order dated 02.09.2026 passed in O.A. No.3328/2026 has been challenged before the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.(C) No.9560/2026. However, no stay has been granted therein. He further submits that, as of now, only a show-cause notice has been issued to the applicant and no order effecting recovery has been passed till date.
It is further submitted that the applicant submitted a representation dated 24.08.2026 (Annex. A/5) against proposed recovery arising vide CCRUM order dated 11.08.2026 out of re-fixation of pay/withdrawal of ACP benefit granted in 2005. However, the same has not been considered till date. He submitted that the applicant would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondents to consider and dispose of the said representation by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated time frame.
Issue notice. Mr. Amit Sinha, learned counsel, appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He seeks some time to obtain appropriate instructions.
In view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present O.A. is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the applicant dated 24.08.2026 (Annexure A/5) by passing a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks’ from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is further directed that, till the aforesaid representation is considered and decided and the order passed thereon is communicated to the applicant, the respondents shall not effect any recovery from the pay of the applicant pursuant to the proposed recovery in question.
The O.A. stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, without entering into the merits of the case, at the admission stage itself. Pending M.A(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.