Union Territory and Another vs Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and Others

M.M. Kumar, J.—The instant petition filed by the Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh, is directed against order dated 27.11.2009, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, ''the Tribunal'') in OA No. 277/CH/2008. It has been categorically found that the private respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were given the benefit of six additional increments in pursuance to instructions issued on 8.10.1993/27.10.1993 (P-2). According to the instructions the PCMS doctors have been held entitled to additional/advance increments for acquiring higher skill and qualification w.e.f. 1.1.1996. The rates have been specified in the instructions, which reads as under:

i) One or two House jobs : Two increments (of the duration of one year) ii) More than one House : Three increments job (of the total duration of not less than two years) iii Post Graduate Diploma : Two increments) iv) Post Graduate Degree : Four increments under two years course v) Post Graduate Degree : Six increments (these with or without house increments will be inclusive job under three years of the increments granted for course doing one year house job).

Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were extended the benefit of the said instructions. However, on 23.5.2001 (P-6), another set of instructions was issued modifying the earlier instructions dated 8.10.1993/27.10.1993 (P-2). However, the later instructions made it clear that those PCMS doctors who were recruited prior to 1.1.1996 were to continue to get the benefit under the earlier orders. The appellants misinterpreted the later instructions and withdrew the earlier order granting them six increments. Accordingly, orders dated 28.12.1993, 11.6.1998 and 29.11.1996 (P-3 to P-5) were withdrawn and fresh order was passed on 20.3.2008/1.4.2008 (P-9), giving three increments @ Rs. 220/- each. The Tribunal set aside the order, as is evident from the perusal of the concluding part of its judgment, which reads as under:

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusal of the record particularly the instructions referred to hereinabove, we have observed that Annexure A-5 was issued on 23.5.2001 making it effective from 01.01.1996 but with clear provision that PCMS doctors who were recruited prior to 01.01.1996 will continue getting benefit under the earlier order i.e. vide Annexure A-4 dated 8.10.1993/27.10.1993 under which the applicants were granted six additional increments. Therefore, we find favour with the contention of the applicants that withdrawal of these benefits is an outcome of misinterpretation of the provisions of Annexure A-5 by the respondents. Therefore, we hereby hold that the same is not permissible and the impugned order has been passed in violation of the clear instructions given in Annexure A-5. We hereby quash the impugned order Annexures A-1 along with Annexures A-2/1 to A-2/3 while giving directions to the respondents to refund the amount already recovered, if any, from the salary of the applicants. Needful be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. With this, the O.A. stands disposed of. No costs.

Mr. Harkesh Manuja, learned Counsel for the appellants has tried to persuade us that the instructions issued on 23.5.2001 (P-6) were applicable to the cases of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and the benefit of earlier instructions has been rightly withdrawn. His basic contention is that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were not medical officers on 1.1.1996 and, therefore, no benefit of six increments could have been given.

Having heard learned Counsel, we are of the considered view that the instruction dated 8.10.1993/27.10.1993 (P-2) do not require that any doctor has to be medical officer before becoming entitled to the benefit of those instructions. The instructions only says that PCMS doctors were entitled to additional/advance increments for acquiring higher skill and qualification w.e.f. 1.1.1996 at the rates given in the preceding paras. The subsequent instructions issued on 23.5.2001 (P-6) expressly exclude the cases of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 who were to be governed by the earlier instructions issued on 8.10.1993/27.10.1993. Therefore, there was no opportunity for the appellants to withdrew the benefit given to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in pursuance to the earlier instructions. It is nobody''s case that some wrong benefit was given which was not admissible to them under the earlier instructions. The Tribunal has taken the correct view and the writ petition is bereft of merit. Accordingly, we find that the instant petition does not warrant admission.

For the reasons aforementioned, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.