Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
M K Shukla vs Union Of India on 17 March, 2026
OA No. 287 of 2015
(Reserved on 19.02.2026)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD.
Allahabad, this the 17th day of March, 2026
Original Application No. 287 of 2015
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative)
Manish Kumar Shukla S/o Sri Shankar Prasad Shukla R/o Vill. & Post
Ayodhya, Distt. Allahabad.
....Applicant
By Advocate: Shri S.K. Om
Shri Pradeep Kumar Mishra
Versus
1. Union of India Through, Executive Director National Institute of
Electronics & Information Technology, Electronics Niketan, 6,
C.G.O. Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
2. Director National Institute of Electronics & Information Technology,
M.M. Technical University Campus Gorakhpur-273010.
....Respondents
By Advocate: Shri K.P. Singh
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative):
Shri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri K.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents are present.
2. By means of this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs :
"(i) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 30.1.2015 passed by Resp. no. 2.
(Annexure-1).
(ii) To issue a further writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the applicant as Office Assistant Grade-III and continue to pay his salary and other consequential benefits, as if the order dt. 30.1.2015 passed by Resp. no. 2 has not been passed. RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 1 of 12 OA No. 287 of 2015
(iii) To grant any other and further relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
(iv) To award cost of the petition in favour of applicant."
3. The brief facts as narrated by the applicant are that the Centre for Electronic Design and Technology of India (CEDTI) was originally a society under the Government of India, which later merged into the Department of Information Technology and then into the Department of Electronics and Accreditation of Computer Courses (DOEACC), an autonomous society, Vide resolution dated 10.10.2011, DOEACC was renamed National Institute of Electronics & Information Technology (NIELIT), adopting the same rules, regulations, and staff. While working as a Junior Engineer at DOEACC Patna, the applicant applied for the post of Office Assistant Grade-III and, being an internal candidate, was granted age relaxation in terms of Staff Rules which had no age limit for internal candidates. The applicant appeared in the written test and interview and was selected on 01.07.2010 for the Gorakhpur Centre. However, his selection was challenged by Shri Harish Chandra before the Tribunal in OA No.86 of 2011 on the ground that the applicant was over age and not entitled to get age relaxation. It is submitted that initially the respondents defended the applicant's selection stating that age relaxation was granted under the rules but later on the Director of the Institute has changed it then the respondents has taken a somersault to the effect that the applicant has been granted age relaxation erroneously and he is not entitled for the same. An enquiry was conducted against the applicant, which concluded that the age relaxation granted to him was erroneous. Although the enquiry committee had recommended that action should be taken only after the case pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal was decided but the respondents terminated the applicant's services on 30.01.2015. The applicant contends that this action is illegal because no charge sheet was issued to him and no proper departmental enquiry was RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 2 of 12 OA No. 287 of 2015 conducted before terminating his services. Therefore, the termination order dated 30.01.2015 is arbitrary, violates the principles of natural justice, and is also contrary to the protection provided under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this OA.
4. The respondents have refuted the claim of the applicant by filing a counter affidavit and have submitted that the applicant was appointed as Junior Engineer at DOEACC, Patna Regional Centre of Gorakhpur on contract basis on purely on consolidated salary of Rs.7000/- per month for the period of one year w.e.f. 01.09.2008. It is submitted that the applicant was allowed age relaxation on his request vide his letter dated 01.04.2010 due to the misinterpretation of recruitment rules applicable to the internal candidate. it is further submitted that as the applicant was not a regularly appointed employee but was appointed only on contract basis on a consolidated salary, he was not fulfilling the age relaxation criteria of three years continuous regular service as prescribed by the Government of India. As such, the applicant was not entitled for age relaxation as admissible to internal/regular employees and he was wrongly allowed age relaxation at the relevant time. It is submitted that applicant was allowed age relaxation due to the misinterpretation of Rules on his representation dated 01.04.2010, whereas the age relaxation was not admissible to the applicant in Society Rules. As the applicant was not a regularly appointed employee, he would not be eligible for age relaxation as admissible to internal candidates. An inquiry was conducted against the appointment of applicant and report was submitted to the competent authority. It is submitted that the copy of Inquiry Report was supplied to the applicant duly signed by the Inquiry Officer before show cause notice issued to the applicant. As per instructions contained in the OM dated 19.05.1993 of the department of Personnel & Training, issued subsequent to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 3 of 12 OA No. 287 of 2015 District Collector Vizianagram Vs. M Tripura Sundari Devi (1990 (4) SLR
237) the services of the applicant was to be terminated as he was not eligible for his initial appointment. On the basis of above submission, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted to dismiss the OA as devoid of merit.
5. In rejoinder affidavit, the applicant has reiterated the similar facts as given in the OA and added that age relaxation was rightly accorded to the applicant by the Dy. Director vide its order dated 7.5.2010, which was further approved by the Director on the same day. It is further submitted that Mr. S.K.Singh and Mr. A.G. Rao were appointed on the post of Design Engineer in the respondent Society. Mr. S.K.Singh was about 36 Year of age and Mr. A.G. Rao was about 42 years of age at the time of requirement in the DOEACC Society. Both Design Engineer, were granted age relaxation as per Recruitment rules framed by CEDTI. It is submitted that The DOEACC Society was an autonomous society and it was registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860. The DOEACC was registered in 1994. The name of the DOEACC Society has been changed from 10th October 2011. Now DOEACC Society has been renamed as "National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology" (NIELIT). It is specifically stated that age relaxation is mentioned in the staff rules of the Society and accordingly the same was granted by the competent authority. It is further submitted that applicant was correctly granted age relaxation, but the same was later on changed due to ulterior motives and irrelevant considerations, however the same is wholly erroneous and is liable to be quashed.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents has filed the supplementary counter affidavit, in which it is submitted that the applicant was earlier appointed on contract basis on the consolidated salary at DOEACC, Patna RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 4 of 12 OA No. 287 of 2015 Regional Centre of Gorakhpur, which was not regular appointment in accordance with DOEACC Staff Rules para 3.1 and the authority who allowed the age relaxation was not having jurisdiction to relax the over age and on that basis has requested to dismissed the OA as devoid of merit.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed the supplementary rejoinder affidavit and have denied the issue raised by the learned counsel for the respondents and has further submitted that the regular employee and contract employee has been defined under rule 1.3.Q and 1.3.R of DOEACC Staff Rules. Regular employee as well as Contract employee are covered within the definition of employee as provided under DOEACC of Staff Rules, 2004. The recruitment rules framed by CEDTI and subsequently adopted by DOEACC Society makes no distinction between regular employee and contract employee and giving the age relaxation to applicant. On the above consideration is in accordance with the above rules. He has further submitted that no inquiry was conducted against the applicant, the applicant was not provided any opportunity to defend his candidature in front of inquiry officer so whatever inquiry was conducted it was against the principle of natural justice.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following judgments :-
(i) Sudarshan Rajpoot Vs. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 18.11.2014 in Civil Appeal No.10353-54 of 2014.
(ii) Vijay Shankar Tripathi Vs. State Public Services Tribunal and others decided by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court on 23.11.2005 in Writ Petition No.28767 of 1998.
(iii) Rishi Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh decided by Hon'ble Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) on 20.12.2002 in Appeal No.954 of 2002.
(iv) Sh. Ravi Kumar Vs. DSSSB through Chairman decided by CAT Principal Bench on 08.05.2023 in OA No.4318 of 2017.
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 5 of 12 OA No. 287 of 2015
9. In the case of Sudarshan Rajpoot Vs. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-
"32. Further, it is important for us to examine another aspect of the case on hand with respect to reinstatement, back wages and the other consequential benefits to be awarded in favour of the appellant workman. In Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya 16, after referring to the three-Judge Bench judgments with regard to the principle to be followed by the Labour Courts/Industrial Tribunals to award back wages if order of termination/dismissal is set aside, the law has been laid down in this regard by this Court as under: (SCC p. 344, para 22) "22. The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal or termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which he would have been but for the illegal action taken by the employer. The injury suffered by a person, who is dismissed or removed or is otherwise terminated from service cannot easily be measured in terms of money. With the passing of an order which has the effect of severing the employer-employee relationship, the latter's source of income gets dried up. Not only the employee concerned, but his entire family suffers grave adversities. They are deprived of the source of sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education and advancement in life. At times, the family has to borrow from the relatives and other acquaintance to avoid starvation. These sufferings continue till the competent adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the action taken by the employer. The reinstatement of such an employee, which is preceded by a finding of the competent judicial/quasi-judicial body or court that the action taken by the employer is ultra vires the relevant statutory provisions or the principles of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim full back wages. If the employer wants to deny back b wages to the RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 6 of 12 OA No. 287 of 2015 employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. Denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the employee concerned and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages including the emoluments."
Therefore, keeping in mind the principles laid down by this Court in the above case, we are of the opinion that the appellant workman should be paid full back wages by the respondent Corporation.
The facts involved in the above case are different than this OA.
10. Vijay Shankar Tripathi Vs. State Public Services Tribunal and others, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has held that :-
"Thus, the law can be summarised that where the employer assessed the suitability of any temporary employee/probationer after holding the preliminary inquiry behind his back, the termination is based on the foundation and, therefore, the order is punitive and thus bad. In that case termination by holding regular inquiry is required. However, in a case where employer makes up his mind to get rid of the employee merely on allegations without trying to find out the truth of the same that can merely be a motive for removal, and as the termination is not based on foundation, it cannot be held to be punitive in nature. The language used in the order of termination may be very innocuous and apparently the order may be an order of termination simplicitor but the Court can find out the real nature of the order after examining the entire records placed before it and in case it comes to the conclusion that there had been some foundation for passing the termination order and the same had been passed in violation of the mandate of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, the order is liable to be quashed."
11. In the case of Rishi Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Hon'ble Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) has held that :-
"In premise, the law laid down by the Apex Court is that the instrumentality of the State should ensure the service security to its employees and there should be an end to arbitrary termination of services of such employees. Further, Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India conferred upon a citizen right to work and dignity of person with means of livelihood. In view of the above discussions, the cases relied upon by the respondents' counsel referred to above, are not applicable in this case."
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 7 of 12 OA No. 287 of 2015
12. In the case of Sh. Ravi Kumar Vs. DSSSB through Chairman, the CAT Principal Bench has held that :-
"As already discussed hereinabove in Dr. Jamuna Kurup (supra), wherein it has been held that "When there is a contract of employment, the person employed is the employee and the person employing is the employer. In the absence of any restrictive definition, the word 'employee' would include both permanent or temporary, regular or short term, contractual or ad hoc. Therefore, all persons employed by MCD whether permanent or contractual will be 'employees of MCD'."
and in Preethi Rahti (supra) also the present issue of age relaxation has already been dealt with and accordingly, no divergent view can be taken in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case."
13. Learned counsel for the respondents while making the written submission has relied on the following judgments :-
(i) District Collector Chairman Vizianagaram (Social Welfare Residential School Society Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi [1990 (3) SCC Page 655).
(ii) Union of India (UOI) and Anr. Vs. Narendra Singh, (2008) Vol.2 SCC Page 750.
(iii) I.C.A.R. & Anr. Vs. T.K. Suryanarayan & ors (AIR 1997 SC 3108.
(iv) Muir Mills Unit of N.T.C. (U.P.) Ltd. Vs. Swayam Prakash Srivastava & Anr. (AIR 2007 SC 5191.
(i) In the case of District Collector Chairman Vizianagaram (Social Welfare Residential School Society Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it must further be realized by all concerned that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable. No court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice.
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 8 of 12 OA No. 287 of 2015 The case deals with fraudulent appointment and possession of inferior qualification by the applicant. In the present case the issue involved is of different nature where the qualification of the applicant is not in dispute rather the age of the applicant is in dispute which is relaxable and has been relaxed by the authority. Hence, the above judgment is not relevant in deciding the above OA.
(ii) In the case of Union of India (UOI) and Anr. Vs. Narendra Singh, , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mistakes are mistakes and they can always be corrected by following due process of law.
"28. It is true that the mistake was of the promoted Department and the respondent was though he was not eligible and qualified. But, countenance the submission of the we cannot respondent that the mistake cannot be corrected. Mistakes are mistakes and they can always be corrected by following due process of law. In Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Anr. V. T.K. Suryanarayan and Ors. MANU/SC/1264/1997 : (1997) 6SCC766, it was held that if erroneous promotion is given by wrongly interpreting the rules, the employer cannot be prevented from applying the rules rightly and in correcting the mistake. It may cause hardship to the employees but a court of law cannot ignore Statutory Rules."
In the present case the Hon'ble Supreme Court deals with the erroneous promotion given to applicant by wrongly interpreting the rules, although, the respondents claims that rules have been wrongly interpreted but the case is not of promotion. Mainly the respondents have taken a stand that age relaxation granted to applicant is wrong and it was granted by an authority who is incompetent to grant such age relaxation.
(iii) In the case of I.C.A.R. & Anr. Vs. T.K. Suryanarayan & ors., the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if in some cases, erroneous promotions had been given contrary to the said Service Rules and consequently such employees have been allowed enjoy the fruits of improper promotion, an employee cannot base his claim for promotion contrary to the statutory Service Rules in law courts. Incorrect promotion either given erroneously by RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 9 of 12 OA No. 287 of 2015 the department by misreading the said Service Rules or such promotion given pursuant to judicial orders contrary to Service Rules cannot be a ground to claim erroneous promotion by perpetrating infringement of statutory Services Rules.
This judgment deals with the erroneous promotion and does not throw the relevant light in the present case.
(iv) In the case of Muir Mills Unit of N.T.C. (U.P.) Ltd. Vs. Swayam Prakash Srivastava & Anr. (AIR 2007 SC 5191, the Hon'ble Court has held that :-
"This Court's decision in the case of P.N. Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Studies (supra), can be referred to in this context, where it was held by this Court that, the services of a probationer can be terminated at any time before confirmation, provided that such termination is not stigmatic. This Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. V K Chourasiya 1999 SCC (L&S) 1155 also has held that in the event of a non-stigmatic termination of the services of a probationer, principles of audi alteram partem are not applicable.........."
In this case it is mentioned that in the event of a non-stigmatic termination of the services of a probationer, principles of audi alteram partem are not applicable.
The issue involved in the present case is different from the above.
14. In the preset case the applicant was given first age relaxation. He was allowed to serve in the department and after some time on some complaint and internal inquiry committee was set up, which found that age relaxation granted to the applicant was erroneous and on that basis his services were terminated. It is difficult to treat this termination non-stigmatic.
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 10 of 12 OA No. 287 of 2015
15. We have considered the rival submission and verified the documents and taken in to account the written submission made by learned counsel for the respondents.
16. The main issue in this OA is whether the applicant was an internal candidate and if so whether age relaxation was granted in accordance with rules and if so the authority who has granted age relaxation is competent to grant such age relaxation. In the case of Sh. Ravi Kumar Vs. DSSSB through Chairman discussed in paragraph 12 above the CAT, Principal Bench has not distinguished between regular or contractual or adhoc appointee as employee. If we accept the above definition, we can safely conclude that the applicant was an internal candidate. The second issue of competence of authority, who has granted the age relaxation. The age relaxation was granted by Deputy Director, which was approved by the Director. The inquiry was conducted by the Joint Director (ANF) from the National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology Srinagar/Jammu. The relevant portion of his findings is reproduced as under
:-
"4. Responsibility of Officials Responsibility lies on Deputy Director & Director of the Centre having routed and approved the note for grant of age relaxation. In my opinion, the Director of the Centre is responsible to the extent that he did not properly interpreted the rules related to age relaxation and relied upon the note initiated by Dy Director on contract and also on the basis of opinion sought from the local legal advisor.
Recommendation for Action It has been given to understand that the said matter is sub judicious and is pending for disposal in the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal. Hence the matter may be further taken up as per the findings of the Hon'ble Court.
17. It is clearly mentioned that it is the opinion of the Inquiry Officer that Director of the Centre is responsible to the extent that he did not properly interpret the rules relating to age relaxation and relied upon the note initiated RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 11 of 12 OA No. 287 of 2015 by the Dy. Director on contract and also on the basis of opinion sought from the local legal advisor. In the inquiry report, the Inquiry Officer has failed to mention that who was the competent to grant age relaxation and which is the relevant rule under which the age relaxation should be granted or denied. It is also not mentioned in the inquiry report that who is eligible to get age relaxation and further he has not suggested any action till final outcome of the matter pending in the Tribunal. It was not categorically stated that if centre director was not competent to grant age relaxation then who was the competent person to grant such relaxation. It is relevant to mention here that opinion is different from findings based on relevant rules and based on due process prescribed under the rule.
18. On the basis of above consideration, we are of the considered opinion that the applicant has been able to establish that age relaxation was done by the competent person and grant of age relaxation was proper. There is not the case of the respondents that applicant has used unfair means or any undue influence on the authorities to grant illegal age relaxation. Under the circumstances, the OA is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed. Order dated 30.01.2015 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to take applicant into service with liberty to hold detailed inquiry under relevant rules and take appropriate action accordingly. The applicant is not entitled for any monitory compensation for the period he has not worked. This exercise should be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.
19. All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member(Administrative) Member(Judicial)
RKM/
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA
Page 12 of 12