Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dinesh Kumar Raheja vs Gnctd on 11 April, 2022
1
Item No.7 O.A. No. 913/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No.913/2022
This the 11th day of April, 2022
Hon'ble Ms. Manjula Das, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
Dinesh Kumar Raheja
Formerly Associate Professor
Now Assistant Professor (ECE)
S/o. Late Sri. Bhawani Das Raheja,
R/o. B-102/1, East of Kailash,
New Delhi-110 065.
Aged around 53 years,
Presently posted at
Ambedkar Institute of Advanced Communication
Technology and Research,
Geeta Colony, Delhi - 110 031.
(Netaji Subhas University of Technology-
East Campus)
...Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Udayan Jain)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Through its Chief Secretary,
Delhi Sachivalaya,
Players Building,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi - 110 002
2. Principal Secretary/Secretary
(Technical Education)
Directorate of Training & Technical Education,
GNCT of Delhi
Muni Maya Ram Marg,
Pitam Pura, Delhi - 110 088.
2
Item No.7 O.A. No. 913/2022
3. Director, Directorate of Training
and Technical Education,
GNCT of Delhi
Muni Maya Ram Marg,
Pitam Pura, Delhi - 110 088.
4. Lt. Governor of Delhi, GNCT of Delhi,
Raj Bhawanr Shamnath Marg,
Civil Lines, New Delhi - 110 054.
...Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. Amit Anand)
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Ms. Manjula Das, Chairman This is the second round of litigation. Earlier the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing OA No. 1548/2020 seeking similar reliefs, which was disposed of vide order dated 19th October, 2020.
2. The present OA has been filed by the applicant challenging various orders 14.01.2019, 02.04.2019, 15.04.2019, 01.05.2019, 21.10.2019, 21.10.2010 and 15.06.2021, whereby certain actions have been taken by the respondents against the applicant.
3. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the impugned orders passed by the 3 Item No.7 O.A. No. 913/2022 respondents are illegal, non-est and void ab inito. Hence, the applicant prayed for the following reliefs :
"a. Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 1401.2019 of the respondents thereby withdrawing the CAS benefits to the Applicant in pursuance of the AICTE Regulations 2010 duly approved by Cabinet of GNCTD and Hon'ble Lt. Governor and various government orders;
b. Quash and set aside Orders dated 02.04.2019 and order dated 15.04.2019 thereby demoting the applicant from the grade of Associate Professor to the post of Assistant Professor with retrospective effect w.e.f 15.06.2012 and reducing his pay from retrospective effect w.e.f. 15.06.2012 and reducing his pay from PB-IV to PB- III;
c. Quash and set aside directions dated 01.05.2019 for recovery of Rs.24,90,920/- from the Applicant in pursuance of Order dated 02.04.2019;
d. Quash and set aside Order dated 21.10.2019 and all the action taken in furtherance thereof, whereby the respondents illegally and arbitrarily are reviewing earlier orders of the then Hon'ble L.G. counting of Applicant's past/previous service for the purposes of Senior Scale /Selection Grade etc. under Career Advancement Scheme and that too after almost a decade;
e) Quash and set aside Order dated 21.10.2020 whereby by selection committee has taken decision to revise the service benefits given to the applicant and deferred his earlier granted upward movement from Stage-
III to Stage-IV and also ordered his upward movement to stage V to be 4 Item No.7 O.A. No. 913/2022 reassessed on the basis of subsequent AICTE Regulations, 2012 which were not applicable on the case of the applicant;
f) Quash and set aside DTTE's decision (para 386) dated 15.06.2021, whereby the Respondents have sent the recommendations of the selection committee dated 21.10.2020 (appointed to consider the grant of Career Advancement Scheme to Applicant from stage 3 to stage 4) to Hon'ble Lt.
Governor for approval for the revision in dates of Senior Scale granted to Applicant from 15.06.2004 to 23.07.2008 and Selection Grade from 15.06.2009 to 23.07.2013 vide order No. F.6/100/Sectt.Branch/AIR/1203- 1212 dated 02.12.2011; and as per the noting of Addl. Secretary to LG dated 28.07.2021 the same had been approved by Hon'ble L.G. However, no formal order has been communicated to the Applicant till date;
g. Direct the Respondents to restore Status-Quo Ante viz. the Grade of the Applicant to Associate Professor and restore his pay in Grade PB-IV from 15.06.2012 with all the consequential benefits arising there from viz.
promotions, seniority etc. to the Applicant update;
h. Direct the respondents to release arrears on account of his revised pay with interest @ 18% p.a, within specified time;
i. May be pleased to award Compensation against the Respondents for causing irreparable harm and damages to his reputation, prestige and causing him great pain, mental torture and agony by their illegal acts and delaying tactis;
5Item No.7 O.A. No. 913/2022
j. Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to take cognizance of the matter of forgery and fraud committed by the members of the selection committee/Secretariat branch of the DTTE and may be pleased to direct the Respondent no. 4 to appoint a high level committee to investigate the matter of forgery/creation of false documents in the official records by the members of the selection committee appointed by the DTTE/service branch within the time specified by the Hon'ble Tribunal and punish the culprits in accordance with law.;
k. Award cost in favor of the Applicant and against the respondents; and/or l. Pass any further order which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case."
4. Brief facts are that the applicant was appointed through UPSC as Lecturer (Medical Electronics) on 15.06.1998, in Kasturba Polytechnic, under the aegis of Directorate of Training and Technical Education (DTTE).
5. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant was granted senior time scale with effect from 15.06.2004, vide order dated 07.04.2006, and thereafter, on 23.07.2008, he was appointed as Lecturer (Electronics and 6 Item No.7 O.A. No. 913/2022 Communication Engineering) in Ambedkar Institute of Technology, DTTE.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel that vide orders dated 16.11.2010 and 19.11.2010, post of Assistant Professor and Lecturer (Selection Grade) were re-designated as Associate Professor and were placed in the pay band of Rs.37,400-67,000 with AGP of Rs.9000/- on completion of three years of regular service as such. This was made applicable to all those teachers who were granted the scales of Assistant Professors and Lecturers (Selection Grade) prior to 29.07.2010. It is stated that the service of the applicant for the period from 15.06.1998 to 22.07.2008 was treated as qualifying service and counted for grant of selection grade vide order dated 06.12.2010, whereas entire service of some similarly placed officers namely Ms. Manisha Khulbe and others, was counted for that purpose. Learned counsel further added that through order dated 30.03.2011 and in terms of recommendations of the selection committee, the applicant along with Ms. 7 Item No.7 O.A. No. 913/2022 Manisha Khulbe was placed in the Senior Scale w.e.f. 23.07.2008. For grant of selection grade w.e.f. 15.06.2009, the applicant made representation dated 06.04.2011. He further represented to the respondents on 21.06.2012 for fixing his pay in the grade of PB-IV w.e.f. 2012, but to no avail. Rather, vide order dated 02.04.2019, he was informed that the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) was erroneously granted to him, as the Principal of the Institute was not competent to grant the same and consequently, the applicant was demoted to a lower grade with retrospective effect, w.e.f. 15.06.2012, pursuant to which, an amount of Rs.24,90,920/- was ordered to be recovered from him.
7. Aggrieved, the applicant represented against the orders dated 14.01.2019 and 02.04.2019 to the concerned authority on 06.05.2019. It is stated by the learned counsel for the applicant that the order of recovery is in the teeth of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) in Civil Appeal No. 8 Item No.7 O.A. No. 913/2022 11527/2014 decided on 18.12.2014. He also states that on the assurance of the respondents, the applicant did not challenge the order dated 14.01.2019 earlier and consequently, submitted his form for grant of CAS to the Principal, who forwarded the same to the DTTE for consideration. The department, after examining the representation of the applicant recommended for waiver of recovery of Rs.24,90,920/- but, the same is still pending decision. According to the learned counsel, the applicant besides making several representations, made RTI also, to which he received reply about framing of new policy for counting of past service of employees of CAS, which according to him will victimize him as well as cause huge financial loss to him.
8. Mr. Amit Anand, learned counsel appeared on advance service on behalf of the respondents and fervently opposed the OA praying for its dismissal stating that the earlier OA No. 1548/2020 claiming similar relief has already been decided by this 9 Item No.7 O.A. No. 913/2022 Tribunal on 19.10.2020 and hence, the present OA is not maintainable. He further added that the representation being pending decision, the applicant cannot approach this Tribunal again.
9. Heard Mr. Udayan Jain, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Anand, learned counsel for the respondents at the admission stage itself.
10. To a quarry as to why the applicant has filed fresh OA instead of filing MA for execution, the applicant drew our attention to para 2 of the order passed by this Tribunal in OA 1548/2020, which reads as under :-
"2. On 21.10.2019, the respondents decided to review the matter of extension of benefit of senior scale and selection grade which were preponed. The applicant made a representation by raising several objections in this behalf."
Learned counsel further pointed out that the benefit of CAS was withdrawn vide order dated 14.01.2019, which he could not challenge in the earlier OA under the mis-conception and on the false assurance of the 10 Item No.7 O.A. No. 913/2022 respondents that no financial or reputation loss would be caused to him.
11. The plea raised by the applicant has been rebutted by Mr. Amit Anand, learned counsel for respondents stating that this Tribunal passed order on 19.10.2020 whereas, the impugned order is dated 14.01.2019 and that the applicant could have challenged the same in the earlier round of litigation and not now.
12. Denying the contentions of the respondents, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant did not challenge the impugned order in his earlier OA, as the order was passed by the Hon'ble LG and he wanted to follow the chronology. Moreover, he was told by the respondents to apply afresh to get back the benefits. He further added that because of this act of the respondents, his entire career has been jeopardized.
13. Mr. Amit Anand, drew our attention to relief clause of the OA and stated that reliefs A, B and C 11 Item No.7 O.A. No. 913/2022 are hit by principles of estoppel, whereas, relief D and E are barred by constructive res-judicata.
14. We have gone through the pleadings and observed that instead of filing MA for execution of the earlier order of this Tribunal, the applicant has chosen to challenge all the orders mentioned in the prayer clause in a fresh OA, which is not permissible in law. We fully agree with the arguments advanced by Mr. Amit Anand, learned counsel for the respondents that so far the reliefs A, B and C are concerned, they are barred by principles of estoppel and relief D and E are hit by principles of constructive res judicata, as the applicant approached this Tribunal by way of fresh OA instead of MA for execution of the Tribunal's order. Moreover, the applicant could have moved within time, as no one restrained him from filing appropriate application within time.
15. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the arguments advanced by 12 Item No.7 O.A. No. 913/2022 learned counsel for both the parties, we are of the view that the OA deserves to be dismissed being not maintainable on account of the reliefs claimed being plural in nature, and not consequential to each other as well being barred by the principles of estoppel and constructive res judicata.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Mohd. Jamshed) (Manjula Das)
Member (A) Chairman
/Mbt/