Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 945 (HP)

Manoj Kumar v. Union of India

2025-05-07

G.S. SANDHAWALIA, RANJAN SHARMA

body2025
JUDGMENT : G.S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice Present writ petition challenges the order of Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.063/00139/ 14, titled as Manoj Kumar Versus Union of India and others [Annexure P-12], decided on 14.12.2015, except the relief claimed for setting aside of order dated 18.12.2012 [Annexure A-1], subject matter wasnot interfered with. Primarily the ground was that the Grade Pay of the petitioner was more than Rs.2,000/- and since the petitioner himself made a prayer that this condition should not be imposed that a person having higher Grade Pay should be considered for the post of Security Assistant and he be allowed to work in the Ministry of External Affairs, the Central Administrative Tribunal came to the conclusion that it was a condition as per the Rule. Therefore, it was held that the Department could not be directed to modify or increase the condition and it could only pay Security Assistants as per the Rules. The petitioner having been drawing higher Grade Pay had not expressed any interest in serving in the Ministry of External Affairs at the prescribed Grade Pay of Rs.2,000/- and, therefore, he could not be considered for appointment as Security Assistant and OA was held to be without merit and ultimately dismissed. 2. We have perused the paper-book. Apparently, the petitioner had been selected for deployment amongst the Police Personnel of Himachal Pradesh, in the Ministry of External Affairs as Security Assistant for a period of five years, which would be clear from a letter dated 06.12.2012 [Annexure P-6], addressed by the Principal Secretary [Home] Government of Himachal Pradesh to the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner alongwith four other officials was selected by the Screening Committee of the Department, on account of his willingness to serve as Security Assistant on deputation basis in the Bureau of Security, Ministry of External Affairs, as per communication dated 15.09.2012 [Annexure R-2]. Vide letter dated 07.12.2012, the approval was given for deployment and the date of joining in the Ministry, subject to the condition that the official concerned should carry with them all documents as required by the Ministry of External Affairs, vide letters dated 23.11.2012 and 26.11.2012. 3. Vide letter dated 07.12.2012, the approval was given for deployment and the date of joining in the Ministry, subject to the condition that the official concerned should carry with them all documents as required by the Ministry of External Affairs, vide letters dated 23.11.2012 and 26.11.2012. 3. A perusal of letter dated 26.11.2012, Annexure P-5, would go on to show that if the Grade Pay of the selected candidate is Rs.2,400/-, an NOC from the Cadre Controlling Authority conveying his No Objection to serve on a post having lower Grade Pay had to be brought by the candidate at the time of joining the Ministry. Relevant part of said letter reads as under:- “2. The aforesaid official will be on deputation to this Ministry for a period of five (05) years with effect from the date of their joining this Ministry. Their Grade Pay should not exceed Rs.2000/-. If the Grade Pay of the selected candidate is Rs.2400/-, an NOC from the Cadre Controlling Authority conveying their No Objection to serve on a post having lower Grade Pay must be brought by the candidate at the time of joining the Ministry. With best regards.” 4. Apparently, as per the Revised Pay Rules of 2012, the petitioner being a Constable was initially getting a Grade Pay of Rs.1,900/- and thereafter Rs.3,200/- and it was also applicable to the similarly situated persons and other officials also who were getting Grade Pay of more than Rs.2,000/- of higher ranks. 5. Before the petitioner could join the Ministry of External Affairs, vide decision dated 18.12.2012 [Annexure P-13] it had been noticed that Grade Pay of Officers from the State of Himachal Pradesh as such were more than Rs.2,400/- and since there was no Grade Pay of Rs.2,400/- and had been revised to Rs.3,200/- from 01.10.2012, therefore, it was sought to rescind and withdraw the call letter’s issued to all official’s of Himachal Pradesh. 6. Representation had been filed by the petitioner alongwith others [Annexure P-8], that they were willing to serve in the lower Grade Pay as existing in the pre-revised scale without calling for any arrears of benefits and the case should be treated sympathetically. An application was also filed for re-joining and legal notice was also served upon the respondents on 05.08.2012 [Annexure P-9]. An application was also filed for re-joining and legal notice was also served upon the respondents on 05.08.2012 [Annexure P-9]. Initially the petitioner filed an OA No.063/00006/2014 [Annexure P-10], which was decided on 17.01.2014, in which specific relief, as such, was prayed that he was willing to serve in the lower Grade Pay. Vide order 17.01.2014, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the matter keeping in view the undertaking given. 7. Apparently, on 31.03.2014 [Annexure R-10], the Deputy Secretary [BOS], Ministry of External Affairs rejected the case on the ground that he had lost his eligibility for interview in terms of initial letter specifying the Grade Pay requirements. 8. Keeping in view the above, the petitioner was forced to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, by filing fresh OA, however, the case of the petitioner was rejected on 14.12.2015 [Annexure P-12], as noticed above, in view of the fact that Rules provided to the contrary. Apparently, the petitioner in his over-eagerness sought additional relief, whereas, he should be allowed to join, subject to his Grade Pay being higher. The observation of Tribunal, as such, regarding that aspect cannot be faulted, but the fact remains that on earlier occasions, the petitioner had already given his undertaking, as such, that he was willing to serve in the lower Grade Pay and directions had been issued on 07.01.2014, which was not kept in mind by the Tribunal at that subsequent point of time, by deciding the second OA in the proper perspective. 9. Once the letter dated 26.11.2012 [Annexure P-5], gave right to the candidates to convey their ‘No Objection’ from the Cadre Controlling Authority, the respondents, as such, could not have withdrawn the offer granted vide the impugned order dated 18.12.2012, without giving the petitioner an opportunity to furnish requisite NOC. 10. Apparently, before withdrawal, as such, NOC had also been given by the Personnel from Himachal Pradesh, as would be clear from the noting portion dated 19.11.2012, which has been attached alongwith Annexure P-13. Therefore, the action of respondents, as such, is not as per instructions dated 26.11.2012 once the requisite NOC had been given. 11. On 02.05.2024 also, Union of India was directed to obtain instructions regarding the offer given by petitioner, Annexure P-8, as Security Assistant on deputation basis without insisting on the higher Grade Pay. Therefore, the action of respondents, as such, is not as per instructions dated 26.11.2012 once the requisite NOC had been given. 11. On 02.05.2024 also, Union of India was directed to obtain instructions regarding the offer given by petitioner, Annexure P-8, as Security Assistant on deputation basis without insisting on the higher Grade Pay. We are informed that the Union of India has not considered the same positively, as per communication placed on record by Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India. 12. Thus, keeping in view the above, we are of the considered view that once the petitioner has all along been willing to forego his higher Grade Pay and lower down the same within the permissible limit and has given the undertaking alongwith the NOC and his Original Application had been allowed, there is no plausible reason for the Union of India to deny him the benefit, for which he had duly been selected. 13. Resultantly, we allow the present petition and issue directions to the Union of India to permit the petitioner to join as Security Assistant in the Ministry of External Affairs, within a period of six weeks from the receipt of certified copy of this judgment. We are also informed that the petitioner is eligible in all respects and has not reached the upper age limit at the present point. 14. It is made clear that petitioner shall give a necessary undertaking that he will not be claiming arrears of the higher Grade Pay which he is already receiving, once he joins the deputation and during his period of deputation. 15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.