Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 602 (RAJ)

Prabhat Chand v. Union of India

2015-03-10

PRAKASH GUPTA, SUNIL AMBWANI

body2015
Judgment 1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This Writ Petition arises out of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 17.04.2003, whereby the O.A., against the order dated 01.03.2000, by which the two orders dated 21.06.1997 and 29.11.1997 were withdrawn reverting the applicant-petitioners to the lower pay scale, was partly allowed. 3. The Central Administrative Tribunal considered the submissions, held that the applicant-petitioners were not in Technical category. They were in supporting category, and for placement in the Technical category, they had to undergo the necessary training from the recognized institutions and obtain a certificate in that regard. Admittedly applicants-petitioners had not undergone any training from the recognized institution, and had not obtained any certificate of training from the recognized institution. An error was committed in placing the applicants-petitioners in the Technical category, and thereafter promoting them. An effort was made to seek relaxation in qualification from the Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research to promote them. The Administrative Officer, without waiting for the reply from the Director General, passed orders on 29.11.1997, placing the applicants-petitioners in Technical category, and from which they were given promotions. It was later on found that the placement of the petitioners in Auxiliary and Technical category was without necessary qualifications, and thus the competent authority was perfectly justified in recalling the orders of promotions. 4. The Tribunal, after examining the pleadings and the provisions of the Technical Service Rules, 1975, recorded its finding in paragraphs 15 & 16 as follows: “15. It seem that because of the letter dated 27.02.1996 wherein it was informed to the Institute at Avika Nagar, that the Council had reclassified the Auxiliary Posts-Machine Operators into Technical category, the applicants were placed in the Technical category. It may be stated that the rules with regard to Jute Technological Research Laboratory, Calcatta, were different. On the basis of this letter the Institute at Avika Nagar could not be justified in reclassifying the applicants as Auxiliary category and further placing them in the Technical category. 16. The mistake seems to have been occurred because of the nomenclature of the posts. The post of Machine Operator existed in the supporting category. The post of same nomenclature also existed in the Auxiliary category and Technical category. The applicants were in Class IV. They could be given promotion in the next available category to Class IV only. 16. The mistake seems to have been occurred because of the nomenclature of the posts. The post of Machine Operator existed in the supporting category. The post of same nomenclature also existed in the Auxiliary category and Technical category. The applicants were in Class IV. They could be given promotion in the next available category to Class IV only. It is seen that w.e.f. 13.7.78 they had already been promoted from Grade III Rs.210-290 (Rs.800-1150) to Grade IV Rs.225-308 (Rs.825-1200) which was the highest scale for supporting staff, vide order RAA/9 dt. 26.03.1980. There could not be any occasion of promoting the applicants to Auxiliary category from 1994 or Technical category from 1996.” 5. The Central Administrative Tribunal found that the interim orders were granted by the Tribunal on 06.03.2000, under which the petitioners were availing the benefit. The Tribunal did not find any justification to quash the orders, however, relying on the judgments in Bihar State Electricity Board vs. Vijay Bahadur [2000 SCC (L&S) 394], Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1994) 27 ATC-121] and Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana [(1994) 28 ATC 747 SC], it held that since the promotions were given to the petitioners without any fraud or misrepresentation on their part, they will be allowed to keep the salary and the orders, withdrawing the benefits of salary, were not justified. The O.A. was allowed in part, and the direction was issued to the effect that no recovery will be made from the applicants. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that having rendered services for more than two decades after their appointments as Machine Operators between the years 1968 to 1972, they were rightfully classified into the Technical category with effect from 29.06.1996 by order dated 29.11.1997. On the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission, their pay was also revised, and that they were holding the post of Machine Operator T-1 with effect from 10.10.1994. The similarly placed persons were not reverted and that their promotions by DPC were to be made after transfer of the competent authority, by which it was presumed that the relaxation was given in the qualification to the petitioners for being placed in Technical category. 7. The similarly placed persons were not reverted and that their promotions by DPC were to be made after transfer of the competent authority, by which it was presumed that the relaxation was given in the qualification to the petitioners for being placed in Technical category. 7. We do not find any weight in the arguments, inasmuch as, for placement in the Technical category under the Rules, one has to undergo the necessary training from the recognized institution and to obtain a certificate in that regard. The experience was not a substitute for technical qualification for being placed in the Technical category, and for further promotions. The requisite exemption was not granted for the essential qualifications. 8. Though the legal position with regard to retention of the benefits on the ground of unjustified enrichment in qualifications, has undergone a change in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors. [ AIR 2012 SC 2951 ], we do not find any good ground to interfere with the judgment and order of learned Single Judge, inasmuch as, the judgment has not been challenged by the department. The department did not file any writ petition against the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, to allow the petitioners to keep the benefits of the period after their promotions. 9. The Writ Petition has no merit, and is accordingly dismissed.