Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 44 (MEG)

Union of India v. Umesh Kumar Mishra

2022-03-14

SANJIB BANERJEE, W.DIENGDOH

body2022
JUDGMENT Sanjib Banerjee, CJ. - The petition is directed against an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench on May 9, 2019. According to the petitioner, the order under challenge failed to take into account the Ministry of Mines, Central Geological Service Group 'A' Rules, 2010. 2. In the order impugned, the Tribunal referred to the case made out in the petition and observed that it was evident from a DoPT order dated April 24, 2009 that as and when IAS officers are posted on Central deputation, organised Group 'A' officers who are 'senior by two years or more are entitled to be granted NFU in PB-3 and PB-4'. The Tribunal noticed that such benefits had been extended to all who occupied HAG (Higher Administrative Grade) by an order dated January 4, 2011. The Tribunal also asserted that the Tribunal's order of October 23, 2012 pertaining to Dr. Badri Singh Bhandari had attained finality. The Tribunal found that the petitioner before it should have been given the corresponding benefit, referred to a judgment of CAT, Ernakulam rendered on October 26, 2016 and another by CAT, Bangalore on March 19 of 2012 to conclude that no order contrary to such order had been issued by any other forum. 3. The Tribunal found that the respondent herein was entitled to get upgradation in the relevant pay scale with effect from January 1, 2006. Nothing was shown by the Union to detract from such position as to the entitlement of the respondent herein. 4. Though the Union maintains that grade pay of Rs. 10,000/- was offered to the respondent herein, that by itself would not detract from the order impugned. The Tribunal directed the Union to consider the case of the employee for the period of grant of NFU. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent herein that the view taken by the Tribunal is supported by a Karnataka High Court judgment rendered on April 21, 2014 in WP No. 45591 of 2012 (Union of India v. M.N.Ramachandra Rao). The respondent also asserts that the relevant judgment in M.N.Ramachandra Rao has been left undisturbed by the Supreme Court following a petition for special leave to appeal against the order of April 21, 2014 passed by the Karnataka High Court. The respondent also asserts that the relevant judgment in M.N.Ramachandra Rao has been left undisturbed by the Supreme Court following a petition for special leave to appeal against the order of April 21, 2014 passed by the Karnataka High Court. The respondent submits that there can now be no denial of the dues of the respondent in terms of such order of the Karnataka High Court. 6. Accordingly, and since adequate reasons have been given in the relevant order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, no interference is called for. However, it is made clear that the relief the respondent herein will be entitled to will be confined to the legal position as indicated in the Karnataka judgment, and not beyond. 7. WP(C) No. 566 of 2019 along with MC (WPC) No. 305 of 2019 are disposed of. 8. There will be no order as to costs.