Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Saranjit Singh vs Director on 14 December, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA NO. 1056/2010
New Delhi this the 14th day of December, 2011
Honble Mr.G.George Paracken, Member(J)
Honble Dr. A.K.Mishra, Member (A)
Saranjit Singh, SREO (Retd.)
Directorate of Employment,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
R/o 7-B, Pocket-B, Vikas Puri Extension,
Delhi-110018.
. Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. Meenu Mainee)
Versus
Director, Employment,
GNCT of Delhi,
2, Battery Lane,
Delhi.
Chief Secretary,
GNCT of Delhi
5th Level, Delhi Secretariat,
I.P.Estate,
New Delhi.
.. Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Alka Sharma)
O R D E R
Honble Shri George Paracken:
The applicant while working as Sales Tax Officer in the Sales Tax Department was placed under suspension vide Annexure A-1 order dated 17.1.2001 on the ground that he was involved in certain criminal cases. Later on, his suspension was revoked, vide Annexure-2 order dated 27.3.008 and he was posted as Employment Officer in the Directorate of Employment. Thereafter, he made the Annexure-3 representation dated 27.4.2009 to the respondents to release his increments for the years 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 & 2008. He did not get any response from the respondents. Subsequently, he had retired from service on superannuation on 30.11.2010. His prayer in this Original Application is to direct the respondents to release his increments for the aforesaid years so that his subsistence allowance is enhanced and arrears paid to him accordingly.
2. According to the applicant, under FR 24 increments shall ordinarily be drawn as a matter of course unless they are withheld. He has submitted that respondents have never withheld his increments. Therefore, he was entitled to get the increments annually without any interpretation. He has also submitted that withholding of increments of pay could be resorted to only as a minor penalty as listed in Rule 11 of CCS (CA) Rules, 1965.
3. In this regard, he has relied upon judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA-1056/2008 P.C.Misra vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 7.11.2008 wherein it has been held that there was no reason at to why the increment due to the applicant therein even during the period of suspension was not released. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:
This is precisely the prayer of the applicant at para 8 of this OA, which is reproduced as under:
8. In view of the facts mentioned in Para (6) the applicant prays that the Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to release of increments as due on 1-7-99, 1-7-2000, 1-7-2001, 1-7-2002, 1-2003, 1-7-2004, 1-7-2005 and 1-7-2006, so that arrears of subsistence allowance could be recalculated and arrears be paid to the Applicant.
2. It is not the case of the respondents that the increment has been withheld on any ground by the competent authority. As such, there appears to be no reason why the increment due to the applicant even during the period of his suspension should not be released. The respondents are therefore directed to release the increments to the applicant as and when they were due and re-calculate the subsistence allowance, which should be paid along with arrears to the applicant accordingly within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. OA is disposed of as above. No costs.
4. The applicant has also produced a copy of the judgment of the Honble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.9042/2009 decided on 15.2.2010 upholding the aforesaid order of this Tribunal. Relevant part of the said judgment reads as under:
In the circumstances and taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the Tribunal which is impugned before us by the petitioner. There are no grounds to interfere with the order of the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226 of Constitution of India. The writ petition in the facts and circumstances is, therefore, without merit and it is dismissed. Parties are however, left to bear their own costs.
5. Respondents in their reply have submitted that the annual increments cannot be released to the applicant as the suspension period was not regularized by the competent authority. Moreover, the applicant was not entitled for release of annual increments which fell due to suspension period under FR 24 as the said FR has to be read with other relevant FRs, namely, 26,53 and 54. They have also submitted that increments have to be granted only after completion of departmental/criminal proceedings and orders for treatment of the suspension period as spent on duty have been issued by the competent authority.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We agree with the counsel for applicant that withholding of increment is a minor penalty and in the absence of such an order by the competent authority, the increments which are payable to an employee on year to year basis cannot be withheld. We do not find any support for the argument of the respondents that the releasing of increments under FR 24 is subject to the provisions contained in FRs 26, 53 & 54 as this Tribunal has already taken a view in this matter in OA-1056/2008 (supra) and the said view has already been upheld by the High Court in its judgment dated 15.2.2010 in WP (C) No.9042/2009 (supra). We are, therefore, of the considered view that applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought by him. Accordingly, we allow this OA and direct the respondents to release all the increments which have fallen due during the period of his suspension as provided under FR 54 for the purpose of computing his subsistence allowance. The respondents shall work out the arrears thus payable to the applicant in terms of the aforesaid directions and the same shall be paid to him within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
( Dr. A.K. Mishra ) ( George Paracken )
Member (A) Member (J)
sd