Karnataka High Court
Union Of India vs Shri Ashwathanarayana K L on 4 March, 2016
Bench: Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2016
:PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR
:AND:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
WRIT PETITION NOs. 41309-41311/2015 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
1. UNION OF INDIA,
REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
AND TRAINING, GOVERNMENT
OF INDIA, NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2. MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
TO BE REP. BY ITS MILITARY
SECRETARY, DEFENCE HEAD
QUARTERS PO, NEW DELHI - 110 015.
3. DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF
EME (CIVIL), MGO BRANCH,
INTEGRATED HEAD QUARTERS
OF MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (ARMY),
DEFENCE HEADQUARTERS PO,
NEW DELHI - 110 015.
4. COMMANDANT AND MD,
515, ARMY BASE WORKSHOP,
ULSOOR, BANGALORE - 560 008.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.PRABHULING K NAVADAGI, ASG FOR
SMT. ANUPAMA HEGDE, CGC.)
2
AND:
1. SHRI ASHWATHANARAYANA K.L.,
S/O LATE SHRI.LAKSHMAIAH,
38 YEARS., TOKEN NO.3120,
MACHINIST HIGH SKILLED - I,
2. SHRI RAKESH,
S/O SHRI DEVENDRAPPA,
32 YEARS, TOKEN NO.3197,
MACHINIST HIGHLY SKILLED - II,
3. SHRI NARENDRA M,
S/O SHRI MUNIVEERAPPA,
33 YEARS, TOKEN NO.3197,
MACHINIST HIGHLY SKILLED-II
[ALL THE RESPONDENTS
HEREIN ARE WORKING AT
OFFICE OF COMMANDANT
AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
515, ARMY BASE WORKSHOP,
ULSOOR, BANGALORE - 560 008]
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.A.KULKARNI, ADV. FOR C/R1 TO R3
CP NO.5690/2015 AND CP NO. 5691/2015)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE INSTANT CASE
FROM THE FILE OF C.A.T., BANGALORE AND TO PERUSE
THE SAME AND QUASH THE ORDER DT.21.8.2014 PASSED
BY THE LEARNED MEMBER OF THE C.A.T. BANGALORE IN
O.A.NO.597-599/2014 (VIDE ANNEXURE-D), ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 09.02.2016, COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER', THIS DAY, K.N.
PHANEENDRA, J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The Respondents herein are the Applicants in O.A. No.597-599/2014 are "Artisan Staff" in Defence Establishment of Government of India and holders of Civil posts. Presently, Applicant No.1 is working as 'Grade-I Highly skilled Machinist' and Applicant Nos. 2 & 3 are working as 'Grade-II Highly skilled Machinists' under petitioners- Defence Authorities herein. Applicant No.1 and 3 belong to ST reserved category and applicant No.2 belongs to SC reserved category and they are working as highly skilled machinists earlier to their up- gradation.
2. The defence establishment in pursuance of the letter issued by the Ministry of defence ('MOD' for short) in their letter No.11(5)2009-D(Civ-1) dated 14.6.2010 taken decision to implement the restructuring of the cadre (Highly Skilled) of Artisan Staff in view of the 6th Pay Commission with retrospective effect from 1.1.2006. By virtue of the said directions, the erstwhile highly 4 skilled designation was restructured as highly skilled grade II with (pay-band) PB-1 grade pay of Rs.2,400/- and highly skilled Grade-I with (pay-band) PB-1 Grade pay of Rs.2,800/- and the same has been implemented. Considering the seniority of the Artisan staff in the defence establishment, the financial up-gradation has been accorded. The petitioners claimed that the said up- gradation to highly skilled Grade I & II amounts to promotion. Therefore, they made representation, to the petitioners herein, which is also supported by the Union of SC/ST Association for their promotion to the highly skilled Grade I & II on the basis of reservation policy. The said representations of the respondents were considered and the petitioners have accorded the said benefit on 19.8.2011. By virtue of the same, the respondent No.1 was promoted from highly skilled Grade II to highly skilled Grade-I and respondent Nos.2 & 3 from the cadre of skilled to highly skilled Grade-II respectively.
5
3. It is the case of the petitioners that, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Vs. R. Santhakumari Velusamy & Others reported in (2011) 9 SCC 510, has ordered that if the up-gradation is only to the extent of financial up-gradation simplicitor then reservation Policy would not apply to such cadre or post.
4. Based on the above said decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioner No.4, Commandant and MD of Army base Workshop, General Manager (Adm.) has passed an order on 27.7.2013 withdrawing the promotions erroneously granted to the respondents and also ordered for recovery of the excess amount paid to them.
5. The respondents being aggrieved by the said order, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in No.O.A. 609-611/2013 challenging the order dated 27.7.2013 issued to the respondents 1 to 3 separately in different numbers. The Central Administrative Tribunal has quashed the said orders with a direction that the petitioners have to obtain clarification from the 6 Department of Personnel and Training ('DoP&T' for short) as to whether the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of BSNL Vs. R. Shanthakumari Velusamy and Others cited supra is applicable to the facts of the case of the petitioners and there after to pass a speaking order. Consequently the tribunal has quashed the order dated 27.7.2013 passed by the 4th petitioner.
The petitioners in pursuance of the orders of CAT, after obtaining the opinion from the DoP&T passed a speaking order on 16.4.2014 as per Annexure-10. The petitioners by reiterating its earlier stand taken with regard to the validity of the withdrawal of the erroneous promotion granted to the respondents, reiterated its earlier version specifically stating that the reservation policy is not applicable to the case of the respondents. It is held that, there was no selection procedure followed for promotion of the respondents to the higher skilled Grade- I or II, and it is purely Upgradation of financial benefits simpliciter.
7
Being aggrieved by the said order dated 16.4.2014, the respondents again approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA Nos.597-599/2014. After reconsideration of the entire materials on record, the Central Administrative Tribunal vide its order dated 21.8.2014, quashed the orders passed by the petitioner No.4 dated 16.4.2014 [marked at Annexure-10 to 12 before the Central Administrative Tribunal] and directed not to recover the amount paid to the applicants (respondents herein) on account of their promotion and further directed that their position on the promoted posts, also shall not be disturbed and the same has to be continued. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioners are before this court.
6. Sri Prabhuling K. Navadagi, Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the petitioners strenuously contended that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court noted above, there is no reservation policy that can be applied for financial Upgradation. 8 Therefore, the general up-gradation of financial benefits shall be given to all the persons having the grade of highly skilled according to their seniority, the Pay-scale attached to the posts of Grade-I and Grade-II. It is submitted that the, cadre highly skilled is not actually changed but only bifurcated. Further, no additional work has been entrusted to them for the increase of their salary as per the financial up-gradation. No additional posts have been created for the purpose of giving any promotion to the persons who were working in the grade of highly skilled. It is only a financial up-gradation simpliciter. The very cadre of highly skilled has been restructured as highly skilled Grade I & II. For the purposes of financial upgradation only.
6.1 It is also submitted by the learned counsel that a clarification has been given by DoP & T, in this regard that it is only a financial up-gradation and not a promotion. Therefore, the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is not proper and correct. Moreover, the Central Administrative Tribunal has not 9 given any finding as to whether the Hon'ble Apex Court decision is applicable to the case on hand; or it is actually a promotion post given to the petitioners and they are entitled for promotion as such under the reservation quota, without giving any finding on this aspect, the Central Administrative Tribunal should not have disturbed the orders passed by the 4th petitioner, dated 16.4.2014.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri.P.A.Kulkarni appearing for the respondents submitted that in all the orders passed by the petitioners herein, it is stated that it is the promotion given to the respondents and there is no infirmity in promoting the respondents to the said posts. Further, added to that, absolutely no wrongful act alleged against the respondents herein so as to penalize them by ordering recovery of the amount paid to the respondents, by virtue of their promotion to the cadre of highly skilled Grade I & II. It is also contended that, the principles laid down in the above said decision of the Apex Court, is not applicable to the present case and as such, the order 10 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal calls for no interference and the same deserves to be confirmed.
8. We have carefully perused the records in the light of the above said submissions made by the learned counsels.
9. Before adverting to the materials on record, it is to be considered whether the up-gradation given to the respondents amounts to promotion or it is only a financial up-gradation without changing the cadre. In this regard, we would like to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in order to ascertain what exactly are the principles laid down in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Vs. R. Santhakumari Velusamy & Others reported in (2011) 9 SCC 510, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed at paragraph 14 to the effect that -
"14. Article 16(4) enables the State to make any provision for reservation of appointment or posts in favour of any backward classes of citizens. Article 16(4-A) enables the State to make any 11 provision for reservation in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, which in the opinion of the state, are not adequately represented in the services under the State. As upgradation involves neither appointment nor promotion, it will not attract reservation. Upgradation involves mere conferment of financial benefits by providing a higher scale of pay. If there is mere upgradation of posts, as contrasted from promotion, the reservation provisions would not apply."
The Hon'ble Apex Court has also clarified the difference between financial up-gradation and promotion in the following manner at paragraph 29 as under:
29. On a careful analysis of the principles relating to promotion and upgradation in the light of the aforesaid decisions, the following principles emerge:
1. Promotion is an advancement in rank or grade or both and is a step towards advancement to a higher position, grade or honour and dignity.12
Though in the traditional sense promotion refers to advancement to a higher post, in its wider sense, promotion may include an advancement to a higher pay scale without moving to a different post. But the mere fact that both-that is, advancement to a higher position and advancement to a higher pay scale-are described by the common term 'promotion', does not mean that they are the same. The two types of promotion are distinct and have different connotations and consequences.
2. Upgradation merely confers a financial benefit by raising the scale of pay of the post without there being movement from a lower position to a higher position. In an upgradation, the candidate continues to hold the same post without any change in the duties and responsibilities but merely gets a higher pay scale.
3. Therefore, when there is advancement to a higher pay scale without change of post, it may be referred to as upgradation or promotion to a 13 higher pay scale. But there is still difference between the two. Where the advancement to a higher pay scale without change of post is available to everyone who satisfies the eligibility conditions, without undergoing any process of selection, it will be upgradation. But if the advancement to a higher pay scale without change of post is as a result of some process which has elements of selection, then it will be a promotion to a higher pay scale. In other words, upgradation by application of a process of selection, as contrasted from an upgradation simpliciter can be said to be a promotion in its wider sense, that is, advancement to a higher pay scale.
4. Generally, upgradation relates to and applies to all positions in a category, who have completed a minimum period of service. Upgradation can also be restricted to a percentage of posts in a cadre with reference to seniority (instead of being made available to all employees in the category) and it will still be an upgradation simpliciter. But if there is a process of selection or consideration of 14 comparative merit or suitability for granting the upgradation or benefit if advancement to a higher pay scale, it will be a promotion. A mere screening to eliminate such employees whose service records may contain adverse entries or who might have suffered punishment, may not amount to a process of selection leading to promotion and the elimination may still be a part of the process of upgradation simpliciter. Where the upgradation involves a process of selection criteria similar to those applicable to promotion, then it will in effect, be a promotion, though termed as upgradation.
5. Where the process is an Upgradation simpliciter, there is no need to apply the rules of reservation. But where the Upgradation involves a selection process and is therefore a promotion, the rules of reservation will apply.
6. Where there is a restructuring of some cadres resulting in creation of additional posts and filling of those 15 vacancies by those who satisfy the conditions of eligibility which includes a minimum period of service, will attract the rules of reservation. On the other hand, where the restructuring of posts does not involve creation of additional posts but merely results in some of the existing posts being placed in a higher grade to provide relief against stagnation, the said process does not invite reservation.
On meaningful reading and understanding of the above said decision, it is abundantly clear that, where there is prescribed process of selection or consideration of comparative merit or suitability for granting promotion or up-gradation or the benefit of advancement of higher pay scale with the change of cadre, then it can be called as promotion. But without considering the comparative merit or suitability for granting up-gradation or without following the procedure for promotion, a mere up- gradation of financial benefits will not amount to promotion. If such being the case, if it is only a financial up-gradation without changing the actual work of the employee, without entrusting any extra work of any 16 higher post and also without following any tests for promotion, then it only amounts to financial up-gradation though the pay band of the next cadre or higher post is given to the employees.
10. In view of the above said decision, now this court has to see whether up-gradation given to the respondents amounts to any promotion for to follow the reservation policy. If it is only a financial up-gradation, then the order of the 4th petitioner at 16.4.2014 is valid and consequentially, the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal has to be set aside.
11. In the above said backdrop, we would like to discuss the materials on record.
11.1 Annexure-A13 is the relevant portion of the extract of 6th Pay Commission report in respect of Workshop Staff.
At point: 3.8.26,: the 6th Pay Commission recommended the restructuring of pay scales for the Workshop Staff otherwise than the supervisory category. 17 According to them, the pay scale and corresponding pay band and grade pay has also been recommended.
11.2 As per the recommendation, the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, vide its letter dated 14.6.2010 written to the Chief of Army Staff regarding restructuring of cadre of Artisan staff in defence establishments in modification of the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission. As per Annexure-A14 under which, it is directed the grade structure in the Industrial as well as in the non Industrial Trades, wherever already available and the pay scales of the defence Artisan Staff are modified with effect from 1.1.2006 (retrospective effect given). The pay scales according to the cadre narrated as:
1. Skilled - Pay band PB 1 Grade pay Rs.1,900/-
2. Highly skilled Grade-II - Pay band PB 1 Grade pay of Rs.2,400/-.
3. Highly skilled Grade-I - Pay band PB 1 Grade pay of Rs.2,800/-.
4. Master Craftsman - pay band PB 2 Grade pay Rs.4,200/-.18
This clearly shows that erstwhile highly skilled designation was restructured as:
1. Highly skilled Grade-II
2. Highly skilled Grade-I. Therefore, erstwhile highly skilled Grade Cadre has not been disturbed but the cadre is bifurcated into two parts.
In the said letter, at para 3(b) it says that -
"The placement of the individual in the posts resulting from the restructuring shall be made with effect from 1.1.2006 in relaxation of the conditions, if any, i.e., Trade Test etc., as one time measure."
And at Para 4(i) it also says that -
"The post of Master Craftsman shall be the part of the hierarchy and the placement of Highly skilled Grade I in the grade of Master Craftsman will be treated as promotion."
In view of the above re-structuring, the Artisan Staff may be categorized as highly skilled Grade-I and it is step in aid to the promotional opportunity to the Master Craftsman. There is no direction that there would be any 19 interse promotion to Grade-I or Grade-II. The persons who are working in the said grade ie., "highly skilled"
purely according to their general seniority, they would be given financial up-gradation of highly skilled Grade-II and highly skilled Grade-I.
12. The respondents after the direction given by the Central Administrative Tribunal have got it clarified from the DoP&T which is extracted in the order dated 16.4.2014 Annexure-10 wherein the DoP&T has clarified that -
"the Trade post of highly skilled personnel was split into two categories i.e., Highly Skilled Grade-I and Highly Skilled Grade-II with higher grade pay without creation of new posts to avoid stagnation."
At para 4, it is further clarified that -
"Placement of highly skilled tradesman to highly skilled Grade-I and skilled tradesman to highly skilled Grade-II will be treated as 'promotion'. It was informed that based on this clarification, certain units applied reservation for 20 SC/ST. Office of the Ministry of Defence clarified that such placement would be treated as 'promotion' is applicable for future placement to the highly skilled Grade-I and not for cases from 1.1.2006 to 14.6.2010 as those placements were done without following any process of selection meant for promotion."
12.1 It is further clarified at para 5 that -
"As per the scheme dated 14.6.2010, the highly skilled personnel (as on 1.1.2006) were placed in the Grade-I and Grade-II respectively, strictly as per their seniority and in relaxation of the conditions if any ie., trade test etc., as one time measure. Since, persons were placed in these grades without requirement of passing any trade test or evaluation comparative merit, the said placement is up-gradation simplicitor and in view of BSNL Vs. R Shanthakumari Veluswamy's case reservation is not applicable."
13. In view of the above said clarification, it is clear that the Ministry of Defence and DoP&T are of the opinion that it is only one time measure from 1.1.2006 to 21 14.6.2010. The upgradation have been given strictly basing on the seniority of the employees. When once it is said that is in accordance with the general seniority without changing cadre and without following any procedure for promotion it cannot be said that it is given in the nature of promotion so as to follow the reservation.
14. It is also important to note that the orders given to the respondents dated 19.8.2011 (As per Annexure-I) which shows that the respondent No.1 Ashwathnarayana K.L. has been promoted from Highly Skilled Grade-II to Grade-I with effect from 1.1.2006, wherein it is specifically stated that (due to the grant of financial up-gradation), the promotions have been given and all other entries will remain unchanged. Therefore, regarding the pay band and grade pay though it is stated that it is given to the promoted post but actually, there is no promotional cadre as such and only the cadre has been divided into two parts. For the purpose of promoting to the post of Master Craftsman, the reservation policy would be applicable. The M.O.D. has decided to give 22 financial up-gradation not by way of promotion but by way of dividing the same cadre into two parts by considering the seniority of all the employees of that cadre we are of the opinion it cannot be said that it is a 'promotion' as such given to the respondents in order to attract the reservation policy.
15. Apart from the above, the Government letter dated 14.6.2010 which we have already referred to above, at paragraph 3(b) it says that the relaxation of the condition i.e., Trade test etc., as one time measure has been relaxed. When the condition of passing trade test is a condition precedent for the promotion, the same has been relaxed to everyone in that cadre for the purpose of giving financial up-gradation to them. Therefore, it clears out the doubt that the Government has not been treating them for promotion but for financial up-gradation otherwise if the passing of Trade test is not relaxed even for financial up-gradation also, the trade test ought to have been conducted. If the Trade Test even for the up- gradation would have been considered, then reservation 23 policy should have been applied. In that event, the respondents would have been benefited under the reservation policy. Therefore, for the benefit of all the persons to be upgraded financially, it appears the relaxation has been given by the Ministry of Defence. Therefore, we are of the opinion, on considering all the events and also the clarification by the DoP&T, it cannot be said that it is promotion to the post of highly skilled Grade-I and Grade-II, so as to apply the reservation policy. It is only a financial up-gradation that has been given by the Government. Therefore, it cannot over ride the seniority.
16. It is worth to refer it as an illustration, the financial upgradation given in Judicial Department in the name and style of "Assured Career Progression Scheme". Under the said scheme, Pay-scale for Civil Judges of Junior Division, Senior Division and District Judges with regard to financial upgradation was introduced as per the recommendation of the First National Judicial Pay Commission (First NJPC) 24 recommendations. As per this recommendation, the following financial Upgradation were given by the Government by its Notification No. LAW 26 LAC 2006, Bengaluru dated 09.09.2005:
I) Civil Judge - Junior Division:
After completing five years of continuous service in the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) cadre, the officer is entitled for the pay-scale of Rs.10750-300-13150-350-14900 as against the entry level of Rs.9000-250-10750-300-13150-350- 14550. Further, after five years, the Officer is entitled for the upgradation of the pay-scale from Rs.12850-300- 13150-350-15950-400-17550.
II) Civil Judge- Senior Division:
i) After completing of five years of continuous service in the cadre of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), the officer is entitled to the Assured Career Progression Scale of Rs.14,200-350-15950-
400-18350.
ii) After completion of another five years, after taking First Assured Career Progression Scale, the officer is entitled to the second Assured 25 Career Progression Scale of Rs.16750-400- 19150-450-20,500.
III) District Judges:
i) Sofar as the District Judges are concerned, 25% of the Cadre Strength of the District Judges, who have completed not less than five years of continuous service in the cadre of District Judge, they are entitled for Selection Grade Scale of Rs.18750-400-19150-450-
21850-500-23850.
ii) 10% of the Cadre Strength of the District Judges are entitled for Super Time Scale of Rs.22850-500-24850 and they are to be selected on merit and seniority basis. The said Assured Career Progression Scale given to three cadres viz., Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and District Judges, clearly indicates that there is no question of promotion to the next cadre, but it is only the financial upgradation in order to avoid frustration in the same cadre. The work attached to the said cadre is also not changed due to the financial upgradation. Therefore, it is also clear from the above 26 said illustration that it is only the financial Upgradation and not the promotion given to the officers.
17. In the present case, as we have observed, next promotional post is Master Craftsman, the persons according to seniority have been given up-gradation as highly skilled Grade-I and Grade-II but in order to promote them to the post of Master Craftsman, the reservation policy has to be applied. As clarified by the DoP&T in future they would also take care to consider whether for the purpose of giving up-gradation to Highly Skilled Grade-I post, the reservation can be valid and if they take such decision, it can be considered as promotion. Therefore, in that view also it is abundantly clarified that the up-gradation given retrospectively from 1.1.2006 upto 14.6.2010 is not by way of promotion. But, it is only by way of up-gradation of financial benefits as one time measure. Therefore, we do not find any strong reasons to differ from the decision taken by the Ministry of Defence. Without appreciating and applying its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and the 27 transaction taken place, the Central Administrative Tribunal has wrongly concluded that the petitioners are entitled for promotion on the basis of reservation and that their position should not be disturbed, such decision is a erroneous decision, the same deserves to be quashed so far as it relates to such observation.
18. So far as it relates to recovery of the amount already paid to the petitioners is concerned, we do not find any strong reasons to differ from the observations made by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
18.1 In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court in its latest pronouncement reported in AIR 2015 SCW 501 between State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., has laid down certain principles as to under what circumstances, the employer cannot recover the payments made to its employees. It is worth to extract para 12 of the said decision which is as under:
"12. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where 28 payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far 29 outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.
19. In view of the above said guidelines, if there is no allegation against the employee that he has played any role or he has committed any wrongful act, in driving the employer to commit any mistake or mis-interpret the law, and any amount is wrongfully paid to its employees, the same is not recoverable. In this case also, there is absolutely no allegation whatsoever with regard to the wrongful act or any role played by the petitioners herein in M.O.D giving up-gradation to them and paying salary. Therefore, we do not propose to pass the order for recovery of any amount from them; to that extent, the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal deserves to be confirmed. In view of our above said discussion, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER The Writ Petitions are partly allowed.
The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA Nos.597-599/2014 dated 21.8.2014 to the extent of 30 directing the petitioners herein to maintain statusquo of the grade of the applicants as on 21.4.2014, (if they have not been reverted), and their position on the promoted posts have to be continued, is hereby quashed. The order passed by the 4th Petitioner dated 16.04.2014 (Annexure-
A10, A12 and A13) is upheld to that extent.
The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in directing the petitioners herein not to recover the amount paid to the respondents (applicants) on account of their financial up-gradation promotion is hereby confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE PL*