Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr Naresh Sharma vs Health And Family Welfare on 8 August, 2025
1
Item No.29/ C-1 RA 3/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
R.A. No. 3/2024 in
O.A. No. 799/2022
This the 08th day of August, 2025
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
DR. NARESH SHARMA
POST-DY. DRUGS CONTROLLER (INDIA)
S/O LATE SH. HARI PRAKASH SHARMA
AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/O E-83, FIRST FLOOR,
GREATER KAILASH-I,
NEW DELHI-110048.
... Petitioners
(By Advocate : Mr. Puneet Rathi)
Versus
1. UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE
THROUGH IT'S SECRETARY
NIRMAN BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110001
PHONE: 011-23061863 & 23063221
EMAIL: [email protected]
2. DRUGS CONTROLLER GENERAL OF INDIA (DCGI)
GOVT. OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES
CENTRAL DRUGS STANDARD
CONTROL ORGANIZATION
FDA BHAWAN, KOTLA ROAD,
NEW DELHI
PHONE: 011-23236965,
EMAIL: [email protected]
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Sanjeev Yadav)
2
Item No.29/ C-1 RA 3/2024
ORDER (ORAL)
By Hon'ble Ms. Pratima K Gupta, Member (J):-
Present RA has been filed by the review applicant, seeking the following reliefs:-
"a. review the order/judgement dated 20.10.2023 in OA No.799/2022 titled Dr. Naresh Sharma Vs. Union of India & Anr.;
b) direct/order the review to be listed for hearing so that the position can be explained to the Hon'ble Tribunal;
c) pass any other orders or directions, as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Subsequently, when the learned counsel for review applicant was asked to clarify what specific review he wants in the order dated 20.10.2023, he filed MA No. 2938/2025 praying therein that:-
a) review the order/judgment dated 20.10.2023 in OA No.799/2022 to the extent of para(s) 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 & 6.4; hold that the OA No.799/2022 with regard to the prayer.
(b) pertaining to reinstatement of the Applicant was rendered infructuous as the Applicant already stood reinstated on 10.05.2023;
c) pass any other orders or directions, as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3Item No.29/ C-1 RA 3/2024 3.1 Learned counsel for review applicant submits that though FR 53 has been reproduced in order dated 20.10.2023, however, the correct interpretation of FR 53 has not been imported while giving the final order particularly in para 6.1 of the order. He submits that prolonged period of suspension has no relation to the nature of offence in criminal case.
3.2 Learned counsel for review applicant submits that there is nothing wrong in para 6.2.
3.3 With respect to para 6.3, learned counsel for review applicant submits that at the time of passing the order dated 20.10.2023, the suspension of the applicant has already been revoked. He refers to page 13 of the RA vide which the respondents have revoked the suspension vide order dated 11.05.2023. In view of this there is error in facts. 3.4 With respect to para 6.4 of the order dated 20.10.2023, learned counsel for review applicant submits that there is apparent error of law because the interpretation of the Bench is contrary to the statutory provisions. When the suspension period extended indefinitely, the applicant has right to get full salary or compensation beyond 75% total emoluments. 4 Item No.29/ C-1 RA 3/2024 Referring to FR 53 (1) (ii) and the provision under sub clause 2 he submits that the amount of subsistence allowance shall be increased beyond 50% of the last salary drawn and the Tribunal has not accepted the plea. Accordingly, there is misreading of the provisions of FR 53. Hence, the RA should be accepted and the order dated 20.10.2023 should be modified.
4.1 Mr. Sanjeev Yadav, learned counsel for respondents in the RA refers to para 7 of the order dated 20.10.2023 which reads as under:-
"7. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the applicant for enhancement of subsistence allowance from the existing 50% of his pay at the time of initial suspension, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."
4.2 Learned counsel for respondents in the RA submits that it is simple direction to the respondents to consider the representation the applicant for enhancing the subsistence allowance from existing 50% at the time of initial suspension, to a higher percentage for the remaining period of suspension. He submits that the direction was that the respondents should consider the case of the applicant within four weeks and there is no apparent error on the facts and law. 5 Item No.29/ C-1 RA 3/2024 Moreover, there is no misreading of FR 53. In FR 53 the phrase "shall consider" implied that the Competent Authority „shall consider‟. However, the consideration does not imply the applicant has an indefeasible right to get enhanced subsistence allowance from existing 50% of the last pay drawn.
5. In rejoinder, learned counsel for review applicant refers to the judgment noted in the final order dated 20.10.2023 cited by the learned counsel for the applicant in the OA, the Tribunal has not gone through these judgment thoroughly and according to these judgments, the applicant is entitled for enhanced subsistence allowance beyond 50%, which was earlier allowed to the applicant.
6.1 Heard learned counsels for the parties. 6.2 Learned counsel for the review applicant has tried to re- argue the case and there is no misreading of the judgments cited by the applicant nor there was any misreading of provisions in FR 53. Again it is reiterated that the word used in FR 53 is that the competent authority „shall consider‟ but they may or may not enhance the subsistence allowance beyond 50% which has already been granted to any employee who was under suspension. FR 53 has not conferred an 6 Item No.29/ C-1 RA 3/2024 indefeasible right to the Government employee under suspension to get enhanced subsistence allowance. I do not accept the averments made by the learned counsel for the review applicant. Moreover, the review applicant has gone beyond the scope of review application and is trying to reargue the case. Moreover the speaking part of the order dated 20.10.2023 is a simple direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant regarding enhancement of the subsistence allowance.
6.3 In view of above, the RA is dismissed.
(Dr. Chhabilendra Roul) Member (A) /daya/