Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Lt. Col (Retd.) Ashwani Kumar vs Union Of India on 28 November, 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA No.4273 of 2013
New Delhi this the 28th day of November, 2014
Honble Mr. Justice Syed Rafat Alam, Chairman
Honble Mr. Ashok Kumar, Member (A)
Lt. Col (Retd.) Ashwani Kumar, VSM
S/o Late Sh. J.D.Suman.
Aged about 55 years,
R/o M-2792, Netaji Nagar,
New Delhi-110023
(working as Joint Deputy Director (IA),
Aviation Research Centre,
Dte. General of Security,
Cabinet Secretariat,
East Block-V, R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110066) Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri K.K.Rai, Senior Advocate with
Mr. R.N.Singh & Mr. Amit Sinha)
VERSUS
Union of India
through Director,
Aviation Research Centre,
Dte. General of Security,
Cabinet Secretariat,
East Block-V, R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110066 ..Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Rajesh Katyal for Respondents)
O R D E R
Ashok Kumar, Member (A):
The applicant in this OA is aggrieved by the rejection of his request made to the respondents in his representation dated 21.08.2013 (Annexure A-14) to count his service for the period from 04.10.2004 to 30.04.2007 on deputation basis as Joint Deputy Director (IA) (JDD (IA)) in the pay scale of Rs.12000-16500/- (with pay protection) as regular service, for the purpose of promotion to the next higher grade i.e. Deputy Director (IA) (DD (IA)). The OA has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
(a) Call for the original file (s)/record (s) of the respondent and peruse the same;
(b) Declare the Memorandum No.3/ARC/Photo/2004 (17) Vol-III-7633 dated 13.11.2013 (Annexure-A Impugned) as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and accordingly quash the same;
(c) Direct the respondent herein to count the applicants services for the period 04.10.2004 to 30.04.2007 under the respondent as JDD (IA) for the purpose of promotion to the next higher grade, i.e., Deputy Director (IA) and also his services prior to that in the pay scale Rs.13500-400-17100 i.e., from 21.03.2002;
(d) Award cost of this application and proceedings against the Respondent and favour of the Applicant;
(e) May also pass further order (s) as be deemed just and proper to meet the ends of justice.
2. The applicant was working in the Indian Army and came on deputation under the Respondents as JDD (IA) w.e.f. 04.10.2004 initially for a period of two years, which was extended by one year upto 03.10.2007. In the mean time, his request for premature retirement from the Indian Army to continue in this job was approved by the competent authority vide order dated 15.02.2007 and he was relieved w.e.f. 30.04.2007. At the time of relieving the applicant from Indian Army, the applicant had already been working in the pay scale of Rs.1350-400-17,100 plus Rank Pay of Rs.1600/- since March, 2002, which pay was protected by the respondents even when he joined on deputation as JDD (IA). He was thus in a higher pay scale than that of the JDD (IA) since March, 2002. Subsequently, he applied for re-employment on the post of JDD (IA)/ any suitable post under the respondents through his application dated 12/22.02.2007 (Annexure A-4). Respondents, however, offered the post of Assistant Director (IA) in the pay scale of Rs.10000-15200/- vide Memorandum dated 20.04.2007 (Annexure A-5), which he joined w.e.f. 01.05.2007. Since then he is working on this post without any break. On being relieved from the Indian Army on 30.04.2007, he was relieved from the post of JDD (IA) on 30.04.2007 itself (when he relinquished the charge). Thereafter he joined as Assistant Director (IA) w.e.f. 01.05.2007 on deputation basis. After completion of probation, he was confirmed under the respondents w.e.f. 01.04.2009 and to continue the new re-employment till his superannuation on attaining the age of 60 years i.e. upto 31.08.2018. He was later on promoted against the post of JDD (IA) w.e.f. 01.04.2012.
3. The next promotional post for the applicant is the post of DD (IA) and according to the Recruitment Rules for promotion from JDD (IA) to DD (IA), the essential requirements are as under:-
(a) He should have served in scale of Rs.15500-39100 plus grade Rs.7600 with 5 years of regular service in the grade.
(b) Ninety percent by promotion failing which by deputation/absorption/re-employment, (Ten percent by deputation/absorption/re-employment).
4. The applicant has submitted that he fulfills all the requirements for promotion to the post of DD (IA), except the experience as a JDD (IA) which he would be completing in July, 2014 by taking into account his past service of 2 years and 7 months under the respondents on deputation basis w.e.f. 04.10.2004 to 30.04.2007. The applicant has also stated that he has joined services under the respondent without any break since his initial appointment on 26.08.1982 and further that there is no change in the job profile during his deputation under the respondents and his joining services on permanent basis. The period of deputation of Defence Officers on re-employment at National Technical Research Organisation with same job profile is taken into account for their seniority and promotion purposes. It is in this background that he submitted his representation citing various judgments of the Honble Supreme Court and Honble High Court, as well as the Recruitment Rules and Instructions for considering his period of deputation w.e.f 04.10.2004 to 30.04.2007 for the purpose of fulfilling the condition of 5 years of service for promotion to the post of DD (IA). However, this representation was rejected vide impugned Memorandum dated 13.11.2013 (Annexure A). Various grounds along with legal provisions have been urged in the OA to justify the aforenoted reliefs that have been sought.
5. Respondents in their counter reply while admitting the facts given in the OA have justified the impugned memorandum dated 13.11.2013. It has been contended that as per OMs dated 29.05.1986 and 27.03.2001 of the DOP &T (Annexure R-1 and R-2), in those cases in which a person is initially taken on deputation and later on absorbed in consonance with the Recruitment Rules, his seniority in the grade in which he is absorbed, would normally be counted from the date of his absorption. If it is a case of a person holding the same or equivalent grade on regular basis in the parent department being absorbed, such regular service in the grade shall be taken into account in fixing his seniority subject to stipulated conditions. It has also been averred by the respondents that in the case of re-employment, there are provisions in the DOPT OM dated 16.06.1980 (Annexure R-3) according to which he shall be treated as direct recruit and his seniority would be determined separately. Based upon the aforesaid provisions, the respondents have contended that since the applicant was offered the appointment as Assistant Director (IA) on re-employment basis and hence his case of appointment with the respondents can not be treated as that of absorption. Absorption and re-employment being distinct are governed by separate instructions. The service rendered on deputation basis cannot be accepted as service against the post of Assistant Director (IA) on re-employment basis, because they are separate. The promotion to the post of DD ((IA) is considered on the basis of fulfilling the qualifying service in the grade of JDD (IA) which the applicant does not fulfill at present for consideration for promotion.
6. Both parties were heard. Shri K.K.Rai, Senior Advocate with Shri R.N.Singh and Shri Amit Sinha argued on behalf of the applicant and Shri Rajesh Katyal argued for the respondents.
7. Applicants counsel has filed written synopsis also on the behalf of the applicant. It was firstly argued that a perusal of the Recruitment Rules shows that requirement of qualifying regular service for promotion of DD (IA) is 5years. The word regular service is not further qualified by any such word as continuous or uninterrupted service of 5 years. In so far as the recruitment to the post of JDD (IA) is concerned, the source of recruitment is shown as 90% by promotion, failing which by deputation/absorption or re-employment as well as 10% by deputation/absorption or re-employment. Thus deputation is one of the sources for recruitment for the post of JDD (IA). Similar identical provisions exist even for promotion for the post of DD (IA) where also the same percentage and mode of recruitment are prescribed. Even the post of Assistant Director (IA) has identical requirements. It was argued that when the applicant joined as DD (IA) on 04.10.2004 on deputation basis, it was in consonance with the rules. Even his subsequent joining as Assistant Director (IA) on 01.05.2007 on re-employment was also as per rules. His promotion later as JDD (IA) w.e.f. 01.04.2012 has also been in accordance with rules. It was argued that in effect, the entire service of the applicant with the respondents has been in accordance with the relevant rules. Now when the applicant has sought for counting of his said service on deputation towards qualifying service for consideration for promotion to the post of DD )IA), the respondents have dealt with his request on the basis of the provisions regarding seniority which was uncalled for and have wrongly rejected the applicants representation. The concept of regular service for the purpose of qualifying service for promotion was different and distinct from regular service for the purpose of counting seniority. The two cannot be mixed up. The following judgments have been cited by the learned counsel for the applicant during arguments:-
i) UOI & Ors. Vs. K.B. Rajoria (2000) 3 SCC 562 (Paras 9 to 13);
ii) Punjab State Electricity Board &Ors. Vs. Jagjiwan Ram & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 661 (Para 17);
iii) Renu Mullick (Smt.) Vs. UOI & Anr. (1994) 1 SCC 373 (Oara 10);
iv) Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri & Anr. Vs. V.M. Joseph (1998) 5 SCC 305, (Para 6); and
v) K.Madhvan & Anr. Vs. UOI & Ors. (1987) 4 SCC 566 (Para 10).
8. Learned counsel for the respondents Shri Rajesh Katyal was heard who has also filed written submissions. It was argued that the Recruitment Rules for promotion from the post of DD (IA) to the post of JDD (IA) provides for five years of regular service in the grade as eligibility for consideration for promotion. The tenure of the service of the applicant 04.10.2004 to 30.04.2007 cannot be considered as regular because the applicant was regularly appointed as JDD (IA) w.e.f. 01.04.2012. Shri Katyal argued that since the Recruitment Rules provided for deputation/absorption or by re-employment to the post of DD (IA), hence deputation/absorption and re-employment are altogether different in terms of service jurisprudence. It was further argued that the words regular service as per statutory recruitment rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India have to be read in its strict sense and cannot be misinterpreted by inclusion of tenure of service rendered on deputation and if it is so done, the purpose of mentioning the words regular service in the rules would be defeated. The applicants argument to include his period of deputation from 04.10.2004 to 30.04.2007 to be viewed as regular service was misplaced and was not sustainable in law. Shri Katyal further referred to DOP& T OM dated 27.03.2001 (pages 12-13 of the counter reply) the benefit of seniority would be given only if the deputation is followed and culminates into absorption in the same post. The provisions of re-employment have been provided in OM dated 16.06.1980 (pages 17-18 of the counter reply) where an officer is re-employed after his retirement/discharge from defence or civil employment, his appointment to civil post under the provisions of the recruitments applicable to direct recruits be treated as direct recruits. According to him in the case of re-employment, the earlier service of the employee comes to an end and only thereafter does he have the right to be re-employed. The applicant in the present case was on the rolls of the Indian Army till 30.04.2007 and he came on the rolls of ARC w.e.f. 01.05.2007 on re-employment. His earlier tenure from 04.10.2004 to 30.04.2007 cannot be counted for the purposes of qualifying service and if it is so done, he would be getting the benefits from two different organizations for the same period which is not permissible in law. Referring to the arguments of the applicants side that OM dated 16.06.1980 was applicable only for seniority and not qualifying service, it was submitted that the said argument is not sustainable in law. The OM dated 16.06.1980 cannot be restricted to seniority alone but has to be counted for all purposes. The judgment of the Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of Diwan Singh Bisht Vs. Union of India (2005 (2) AD (Delhi) 407 was cited. It was also submitted during arguments that the applicant was on deputation on a lower post as compared to Lt. Col., and the re-employment was on a yet lower post and, therefore, he was not entitled to the benefit of judgment in K.Madhavans case (supra) as he did not come to the ARC office on the same or equivalent post.
9. We have perused the pleading documents in detail and have also considered the arguments made on behalf of both parties.
10. The issue for consideration is whether or not continuous and uninterrupted service as JDD (IA) is necessary for being counted for computing qualifying service for promotion to the post of DD (IA) as prescribed under the Recruitment Rules. According to the Recruitment Rules, the specific provision is that Joint Deputy Director (IA) in pay band-3 Rs.15600-39100/- plus grade pay of Rs.7600/- with five years of regular service in the grade and possessing following educational qualifications.. would be considered. Thus 5 years of regular service along with required educational qualification is a pre-requisite for promotion from JDD (IA) to the post of DD (IA). In the present case, according to the applicant, he had worked on deputation from 04.10.2004 to 30.04.2007 as JDD (IA) which he seeks to be counted against the qualifying period for promotion to the post of DD (IA). By doing so, he would be eligible for consideration to the post of DD (IA) because he has rendered service as JDD (IA) w.e.f 01.04.2012 till date. On the other hand, the respondents do not agree with the claim of the applicant for the reason that possess the required qualifying period of five years for promotion. On both the occasions when the applicant worked as JDD (IA) i.e. on deputation as well as on the re-employment, the applicant had rendered regular service, which is not in dispute. In view of above, what is, therefore, to be examined is whether continuous regular service is required or not in terms of the Recruitment Rules to fulfill the qualifying period. 11. Applicants counsel cited the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of K.B.Rajoria (supra). In this judgment in paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12, the Honble Supreme Court held as under:-
9. Third, the High Court erred in construing the words 'regular service in the grade' as actual physical service. If that were so, then an ad hoc appointee who actually serves in the post could also claim to be qualified to be considered for the post of Director General. The High Court itself held that 'ad hoc service rendered by any of the parties would not count towards eligibility".
10. Finally, while considering the definition of the word 'regular' in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, Ninth Edition, the High Court noted that it meant :
"(1) conforming to a rule or principle, systematic; (2) harmonious, symmetrical; (3) acting or done or recurring uniformly or calculably in time or manner, habitual, constant, orderly; (4) conforming to a standard of etiquette or procedure, correct, according to convention; (5) properly constituted or qualified, not defective or amateur, pursuing an occupation as one's main pursuit."
11. The word "regular" therefore does not mean "actual" and the first question the High Court should have considered was whether the appointment of Krishnamoorti was regular and in accordance with the Rules or was it irregular in the sense that it was contrary to any principle of law.
12. The decision which is somewhat apposite is the case of K. Madhavan v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 566 : (AIR 1987 SC 2291 : 1988 Lab IC 26) where the eligibility requirement was eight years in the grade 'on a regular basis'. In that case it was held: (SCC p.575, para 10) In our view, therefore, the expression 'on a regular basis' would mean the appointment to the post on a regular basis in contradistinction to appointment on ad hoc or or purely temporary basis."
Further, in paragraph 20, the view taken by the Honble Apex Court is reproduced below:-
20. In the context of this case, the High Court erred in equating the words 'regular service' with 'actual experience' relying on the decision in Union of India v. M. Bhaskar, (1996) 4 SCC 416. In that case the eligibility criteria expressly were of "completion of 2 years' experience in Grade II." The case is therefore entirely distinguishable.
It is clear from the aforenoted that what the Honble Supreme Court held was that the expression on regular basis would mean the appointment to the post on a regular basis and not appointment on ad hoc or stopgap or purely temporary basis. It is noticed that the applicant in the present case on both the occasions was appointed on regular basis.
12. Another judgment cited was in the matter of Punjab State Electricity Board (Supra). Learned counsel drew specific attention to paragraph 17 of the judgment which is reproduced below:-
17. This Court reversed the judgment of the High Court and held:
"Coming to the circular dated 2-6-1989, issued by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Finance Department, it appears that the aforesaid circular had been issued for removal of anomalies in the pay scale of Doctors, Deputy Superintendents and Engineers, and so far as Engineers are concerned, which are in Class I and Class II, it was unequivocally indicated that the revised pay scale of Rs.3000 to Rs.4500 can be given after completion of 5 years of regular service and Rs. 4100 to Rs.5300 after completion of 12 years of regular service. The said Financial Commissioner had issued yet another circular dated 16-5- 1990, in view of certain demands made by officers of different departments. The aforesaid circular was issued after reconsideration by the Government modifying to some extent the earlier circular of 2-6-1989, and even in this circular it was categorically indicated that so far as Engineers are concerned, they would get Rs.3000 to 4500 after 5 years of regular and satisfactory service and selection grade in the scale of pay of Rs.4100 to Rs.5300, which is limited to the extent of 20% of the cadre post should be given after 12 years of regular and satisfactory service. The aforesaid two circulars are unambiguous and unequivocally indicate that a government servant would be entitled to the higher scale indicated therein only on completion of 5 years or 12 years of regular service and further the number of persons to be entitled to get the selection grade is limited to 20% of the cadre post. This being the position, we fail to understand how services rendered by Rakesh Kumar from 1980 to 1982, which was purely on ad hoc basis, and was not in accordance with the statutory rules can be taken into account for computation of the period of 12 years indicated in the circular. The majority judgment of the High Court committed serious error by equating expression "regular service" with "continuous service". In our considered opinion under the terms and conditions of the circulars dated 2-6-1989 and 16-5- 1990, the respondent Rakesh Kumar would be entitled for being considered to have the selection grade on completion of 12 years from 29-1-1982 on which date he was duly appointed against a temporary post of Assistant Engineer on being selected by the Public Service Commission and not from any earlier point of time. The conclusion of the majority judgment in favour of Rakesh Kumar, therefore, cannot be sustained."
(emphasis added) It is clear from above that equating the expression regular service with continuous service was held as erroneous. Regular service would not therefore imply continuous service.
13. Paragraph 10 of the judgment in Renu Mullicks case (supra), referred to by the learned counsel for the applicant, reads as under:-
10. We are of the view that the Tribunal fell into patent error in dismissing the application of the appellant. A bare reading of para 2(ii) of the executive instructions dated May 20, 1980 shows that the transferee is not entitled to count the service rendered by him/her in the former Collectorate for the purpose of seniority in the new charge. The later part of that para cannot be read differently. The transferee is to be treated as a new entrant in the Collectorate to which he is transferred for the purpose of seniority. It means that the appellant would come up for consideration for promotion as per her turn in the seniority list in the transferee unit and only if she has put in 2 years' service in the category of UDC. But when she is so considered, her past service in the previous Collectorate cannot be ignored for the purposes of determining her eligibility as per R. 4 aforesaid. Her seniority in the previous Collectorate is taken away for the purpose of counting her seniority in the new charge but that has no relevance for judging her eligibility for promotion under R. 4 which is a statutory rule. The eligibility for promotion has to be determined with reference to R. 4 alone, which prescribes the criteria for eligibility. There is no other way of reading the instructions aforementioned. If the instructions are read the way the Tribunal has done, it may be open to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness. (emphasis added) By holding that the previous service of the petitioner in that matter rendered in a different Collectorate could not be ignored for the purposes of determining her eligibility, the Honble Apex Court has thus laid down the principle that services rendered on the same post but in a different unit are to be counted for the purpose of determining eligibility. In the case of applicant in the present OA, the claim for counting the services of the applicant when he had come on deputation against that post, along with his service later on when he came on re-employment, both relate to the same organization and the same office. The applicants claim is to be seen in the light of what has been held by the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of Renu Mullick (supra).
14. In Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantris case (supra), in paragraph 6 of the judgment while drawing the distinction in eligibility for promotion with seniority since the two are different factors, it was held by the Honble Apex Court that even on transfer the service rendered against a particular post by a permanent employee cannot be excluded from consideration for determining his eligibility for promotion. In the case of the applicant, the services rendered by him on a regular basis on deputation, and later on re-employment against the same post in the same organization could therefore not be excluded for determining his eligibility for promotion. Paragraph 6 of the aforenoted judgment is reproduced below:-
6. From the facts set out above, it will be seen that promotion was denied to the respondent on the post of Senior Store Keeper on the ground that he had completed 3 years of regular service as Store Keeper on 7th June, 1980 and, therefore, he could not be promoted earlier than 1980. In coming to this conclusion, the appellants excluded the period of service rendered by the respondent in the Central Ordnance Depot, Pune, as a Store Keeper for the period from 27th April, 1971 to 6th June, 1977. The appellants contended that, since the respondent had been transferred on compassionate ground, on his own request to the post of Store Keeper at Cochin and was placed at the bottom of the seniority list, the period of 3 years of regular service can be treated to commence only from the date on which he was transferred to Cochin. This is obviously fallacious inasmuch as the respondent had already acquired the status of a permanent employee at Pune where he had rendered more than 3 years of service as a Store Keeper. Even if an employee is transferred at his own request, from one place to another, on the same post, the period of service rendered by him at the earlier place where he held a permanent post and had acquired permanent status, cannot be excluded from consideration for determining his eligibility for promotion, though he may have been placed at the bottom of the seniority list at the transferred place. Eligibility for promotion cannot be confused with seniority as they are two different and distinct factors. (emphasis added)
15. The last judgment cited on behalf of the applicant during arguments was K.Madhavan (supra) wherein the Honble Supreme Court drew distinction between appointment on regular basis viz-a-viz stopgap and purely temporary basis.
16. On the other hand, the arguments of the respondents all relate to non-acceptance of service rendered from 04.10.2004 to 30.04.2007 for calculating the qualifying period for promotion. As a matter of fact, the instructions of the DOP&T which have been relied upon namely, OM dated 29.05.1986, relate to fixation of seniority as distinct from determination of qualifying service. The OM dated 29.05.1986 relates to fixation of seniority of a person taken on deputation and later on absorbed. The OM dated 27.03.2001 relates to fixation of seniority of absorbees. It would appear from the very heading of OM dated 27.03.2001 (Annexure R1) which is Seniority of Absorbees concerns seniority. Even the OM dated 16.06.1980 of DOPT (Annexure R3) relates to determination of seniority. We are, therefore, not inclined to rely on these instructions since they are not concerned with the counting of qualifying service but are only concerned with seniority. As has been held by the Honble Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board (Supra), the expression regular service cannot be equated with continuous service. The judgment of Honble High Court of Delhi in Diwan Singh Bishtis case (supra) which has been referred to during arguments by the counsel for respondents also concerns seniority. The issue to be determined in that case was whether the petitioner in that matter was holding an equivalent post or not while on deputation which could be reckoned for service in his parent department. This is apparent from paragraph 11 and 12 of the judgment which is reproduced below:-
10. The core issue that arises for consideration is whether petitioner was holding the equivalent post to that of Security Assistant in IB in his parent organization and whether he was entitled to the antedating of his seniority by reckoning his service in the BSF and while on deputation in IB till absorption on the analogy of Ram Singh Rawat or under the mandate of Supreme Court judgment in Madhavan's case.
11.The equivalence of the two posts is determinable on consideration of several factors like nature and duties of these posts, the responsibilities and powers attached to these, the minimum qualifications prescribed for recruitment to the posts and salary attached to these posts. Nowhere has petitioner set up any case that the post of Constable in BSF equivalent to that of Security Assistant in BSF with or without these factors. His whole case revolves round the benefit given to Ram Singh Rawat and the clarificatory memorandum issued by respondents dated 21.1.1986.
12. In our view, neither the Supreme Court judgment in Rawat's case nor the memorandum (supra) advances the petitioner's case. Because the Supreme Court was not dealing with equivalence of two posts in Rawat's case. The Court in this had asked respondents to produce a letter addressed to Rawat assuring him that his case for reckoning for his service was being examined and because of their default in this had directed them to protect his seniority.
17. In the present case of the applicant, there is no equivalence of posts to be determined for calculation of qualifying period and hence the judgment in Diwan Singh Bishts case (supra) would not be applicable.
18. Having noted the above, it is apparent that the requirement of five years service does not imply continuous and/or uninterrupted service. The applicant has rendered service against the same post in the same organization and at the same place on deputation on regular basis and on re-employment basis later on. On both the occasions, the service rendered by the applicant falls within the category of regular service. The experience gained by the applicant over time on a post, whether in one or more than one tenures, cannot be ignored and cannot be written off.
19. Another relevant aspect is that there being no provision of by way of continuous regular service in the Recruitment Rules for the purpose of eligibility, the same cannot be insisted upon. The qualifying period has to be determined in terms of the provisions of the Rules. As per the Interpretation of Statutes no interpretation can be made other than that what is expressed in the words and letters used in the Recruitment Rules. The following, being relevant, is reproduced:-
1. Golden Rule: Warburtons case; Becke v.
Smith.-Burton, J., in Warburton v. Loveland, observed: I apprehend it is a rule in the construction of statutes, that, in the first instance, the grammatical sense of the words is to be adhered to. If that is contrary to, or inconsistent with any expressed intention, or declared purpose of the statute, or if it would involve any absurdity, repugnance, or inconsistency, the grammatical sense must then be modified, extended, or abridged so far as to avoid such inconvenience, but no further. The elementary rule is that words used in a section must be given their plain grammatical meaning. In the instant case, the Recruitment Rules are clear and unambiguous and, therefore, do not lend itself to any further interpretation to the contrary. The words by way of continuous regular service not being provided under the rules for eligibility cannot be added by way of interpretation.
20. Based on the aforesaid reasons and in the light of the judgments, referred to above, we are of the view that the OA is fit to be allowed. The services rendered by the applicant on deputation basis as JDD (IA) from 04.10.2004 to 30.04.2007 shall be counted for the purpose of qualifying service for the next promotional post of Deputy Director (IA) as per the reliefs sought by the applicant in this OA. The impugned order dated 13.11.2013, therefore not being fit to be sustained is accordingly quashed and set aside.
21. In effect, OA is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.
(Ashok Kumar) (Syed Rafat Alam)
Member (A) Chairman
/usha/