Delhi High Court
M.C. Gupta (Dr.) vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 October, 1998
Author: K. Ramamoorthy
Bench: K. Ramamoorthy
JUDGMENT K. Ramamoorthy, J.
1. The petitioner who was working in All India Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as AIIMS) applied to the post advertised by the second respondent and was appointed. At the time when the petitioner applied to the second respondent he was drawing basic salary of Rs. 5,500/- per month in the scale of Rs. 5100-150-6300/- in AIIMS. The second respondent while issuing appointment order on a lesser scale of pay had given five increments.
2. The petitioner has challenged the action of the second respondent and now claims pay protection on the strength of the pay drawn by him in the AIIMS.
3. The second respondent has stated having regard to the terms of offer of employment by the second respondent of the petitioner and as per the bye-laws of the second respondent five increments in the scale of pay were given to him and the petitioner had accepted the same without any objection and therefore, he is not entitled to any pay protection.
4. The petitioner is also claiming that his service book from his previous employer AIIMS has not been summoned for and taken into custody by the second respondent. The petitioner is also claiming the services rendered by him in AIIMS should be reckoned for the purpose of pension and other services benefits.
5. On 16.5.1991 a Memorandum was issued by the second respondent and which is in the following terms:
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, NEW MEHRAULI ROAD, MUNIRKA, NEW DELHI-110067.
Dated the 16.5.1991 M E M O R A N D U M On the recommendations of the Selection Committee the Chairman of the Governing Body of National Institute of Health and Family Welfare is hereby pleased to offer Dr. M.C. Gupta on a temporary post of Professor (Education and Training on Rs. 5,250/- including five adv. increments per month in the scale of Rs.4500-150-5700-200-7300 + NPA Rs. 950/-. The appointee will also be entitled to draw dearness and other allowances at the rates admissible under and subject to the conditions laid down in rules and order governing the grant of such allowances in force from time to time.
2. The terms of appointment are as follows:
(i) The post is temporary at present but likely to continue.
(ii) The period of trial will be one year from the date of joining.
(iii) The appointment may be terminated at any time by a month's notice given by either side viz. the appointee or the Appointing Authority without assigning any reason. The Appointing Authority however, reserve the right of terminating the services of the appointee forthwith or before the expiration of the stipulated period of notice by making payment to him a sum equivalent to the pay and allowances for the period of notice or the unexpired portion thereof. During the period of trial, however the appointment can be terminated at any time without any notice.
(iv) Other condition of service will be governed by the relevant rules and order in force from time to time.
3. The appointment will be further subject to :
(i) Submission of a declaration in the prescribed form in the event of the candidate having more than one wife living, or being married to person having more than one wife living the appointment will be subject to his being exempted from the enforcement of the requirement in this behalf.
(ii) Production of the medical certificate from present employer.
(iii) Taking on oath of allegiance/faithfulness to the Constitution of India in the prescribed form enclosed.
(iv) Production of the following original certificates:
(a) Degree/Diploma /Certificates of Educational and other technical qualifications.
(b) Certificate of age.
(c) Character Certificate in the prescribed form enclosed.
(d) Certificate in the prescribed form in support of candidate's claim to belong to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe.
(e) Discharge Certificate from the previous employer if any.
If any declaration given or information furnished by the candidates proves to be false or if any candidate is found to have wilfully suppressed any material information he will be liable to removal from service and such other action as may be deemed necessary.
If Dr. M.C. Gupta accepts the offer on the above terms he should communicate his acceptance to the undersigned by the 1st June, 1991. If no reply is received or the candidate fails to report for duty by the prescribed date the offer will be treated as cancelled. No travelling allowance will be allowed for appearing for/or for joining the appoint.
Sd/-
(HASIB AHMED) DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMN)
6. On 27.5.1991, the petitioner wrote to the second respondent in the following terms:
27.5.1991 The Director, N.I.H.F.W. New Delhi.
Sir, With reference to the Memorandum No.1-3/90 Adm. dated 16.5.91, offering me the post of Professor (Education and Training), this is to state that I had stated in Column 23 of the application for the said post that I would like to have five advance increments over my basic salary at the AIIMS (i.e. Rs. 5550/- w.e.f. 1.7.91). It is anomalous that I have been offered a basic salary of Rs. 5,250/- only i.e. less than my current salary.
Both AIIMS and NIHFW are sister institutions under the control of Ministry of Health. As such, it is imperative that when an employee of one institution joins the other, his salary should be protected.
In view of the above, if it is not possible to grant me ingredients over my current salary, I must be given the benefit of pay protection at least. It is requested that this issue may be considered appropriately and the anomaly rectified.
Yours Sincerely, Sd/-
(Dr. M.C. Gupta)
7. Later on 12.7.1991, the petitioner wrote to the second respondent in the following terms:
12th July, 1991 The Director, National Institute of Health and Family Welfare, New Mehrauli Road, New Delhi - 110067.
Sir, This is in reference to letter No. 1-3/90-Admn. dated 6.6.91, regarding the number of increments/pay protection in my new post at NIHFW. At the time of applying for the post I had asked for five advance increments over and above my current basic at the AIIMS. This has not been agreed to by the NIHFW and in the circumstances, l shall not press for the same. However, pay protection being a universally accepted principle, there is no question of any person in Government service, or in a service where Government rules apply, joining a new post at a lower salary. While discussing this issue with you some time ago, I understood that the limit of five advance increments mentioned in the bye laws of the NIHFW is meant to be applicable only for fresh appointees in view of their exceptional merit. The said bye-laws have in actuality nothing to do with pay protection for employees already drawing a salary beyond five increments and hence should not be applicable in my case. I am convinced that a favourable decision will ultimately be taken when my case is reviewed from the AIIMS w.e.f. 16.7.1991 (A.N.) and shall join the NIHFW w.e.f. 17.7.91 (F.N.). Thanking you, Yours Sincerely, Sd/-
(Dr. M.C. Gupta)
8. On 11.5.1992, when the clarification sought by the second respondent from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare had written a letter to the Director, National Institute of Health & Family, New Mehrauli Road, Munirka, New Delhi, in the following terms:
Sub: Protection of basic pay of Dr. M.C. Gupta Prof. of E &T and Dr. Geeta Bomezai, Lecturer in National Institute of Health & Family Welfare.
Sir, I am directed to refer to NIHFW's letter No. 1-1/91 -Admn. dated 2.4.92 on the subject noted above and to say that Dr. M.C. Gupta was appointed as Prof. to a post, the mode of recruitment for which is "Direct Recruitment". The Selection Committee also recommended five advance increments for protection of his pay which have already been allowed to him. As such there is no question of granting him further pay protection. Regarding Dr. Geeta Bamezai she opted herself for the post of Lecturer which was in the Junior Scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- in National Institute of Health & Family Welfare. She cannot claim protection of pay drawn in a Senior Scale while herself opted for a Junior Scale and five advance increments recommended have also been allowed to her. Under the circumstances stated above, it is regretted that further pay protection of the above said two officers in question can not be agreed to. Yours faithfully, Sd/-
(I.M. Sondhi) Under Secretary to the Govt. of India.
9. On 20.04.1993, the second respondent had written to the petitioner in the following terms:
F. NO. 5-8/91- Admn.I NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE (ADMN. SECTION) Dated: 20.4.1993 With reference to note No. NIHFW/E&T/MCGT/93 dated 27.1.1993 of Prof. M.C. Gupta, Head of the Department of Education and Training, it is clarified that if the AIIMS will discharge its pension liability by paying lumpsum payment of the prorata pension/service gratuity/terminal gratuity and DCRG for the service rendered by him in AIIMS upto the date of permanent absorption in this Institute as per instructions contained in the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms O.M. No. 28/10/84-Pension Unit dated 29.8.1984, the service rendered in that institution can be counted for the purpose of pension. Similarly, the carry forward of leave on an average pay will be regulated under para 7 of the Ministry of Finance O.M. No. 26(18)/EV(B)/75, dated 8.4.1976. Confirmation cases are under process and when finalised, he will be informed accordingly. Sd/-
(K.V. Mathew) Deputy Director (Admn.)
10. On 26.10.1993, the third respondent wrote to the Secretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in the following manner:
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE NO.1-3/90-ADMN.I 26.10.93 To The Secretary to Govt. of India, Deptt. of Family Welfare, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi.
Attn: Smt. A. Kishore, Under Secretary (C&G) Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter No. A. 45011 /17/92-C&G dated 16th Dec., 1992 on the above subject. Dr. M.C. Gupta has again represented for fixation of pay on the basis of the pay he was drawing in AIIMS before his appointment in the Institute. A copy of the representation is enclosed. As regards the observation made in the first para of your letter dated 11th May,1992 that the Selection Committee recommended five advance increments for protection of his pay, it is clarified that the Selection Committee's recommendations have been misquoted. The actual recommendations made by the Selection Committee is reproduced below :
"In case of Dr. M.C. Gupta, Committee recommended sanction of advance increments permissible under rules to give him protection of his present basic pay."
In view of the above clarification and in the light of the fresh representation made by Dr. M.C. Gupta for fixation of his pay his case may be re-examined and the decision communicated to us at an early date.
Yours faithfully, Sd/-
(K.V. Mathew)
11. Before that even in June 18, 1991 the issue had been mooted out by the second respondent for consideration, to the AIIMS wherein it is stated:
The Deputy Director (Admn.) All India Institute of Medical Sciences Ansari Nagar, New Delhi.
(Att: Sh. B.K. Narang. Sr. Admn. Officer) Sir, Dr. M.C. Gupta, Additional Prof. at AIIMS has been offered a post of Professor at the Institute on a basic salary of Rs. 5,250/- in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7300 after giving five increments over the minimum of the pay scale. Dr. Gupta has represented that his existing salary in AIIMS (Rs. 5,550/- p.m. w.e.f.1.7.1991) needs to be protected. l shall be grateful if you could kindly let us know the rules and precedents followed in the AIIMS in such case where employee from other organisation getting higher salaries are joining AIIMS. This information will help us for taking decision at appropriate level to provide for protection of pay in such case. An early reply will be kindly appreciated.
Yours faithfully, Sd/-
(Hasib Ahmed) Dy. Director (Admn.) 18.6.1991
12. On 15.7.1991, the AIIMS wrote to the second respondent stating that:
ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES Ansari Nagar, New Delhi Dated the 15th July, 91 No. F.6-1 /73-Estt.I Shri Hasib Ahmed, Dy. Director (Admn.) National Institute of Health & Family Welfare, New Mehrauli Road, Munirka, New Delhi - 110 067.
Sub: Protection/Fixation of Pay.
Sir, In continuation of this Institute's letter of even number dated the 2nd/4thJuly, 1991 on the subject cited above and to say that the pay of Dr. M.C. Gupta, Addl. Professor can be protected by the Selection Committee of your Institute under FR. 27 on his joining the post of Professor, as it is being done at this Institute also Dr. M.C. Gupta is drawing Rs. 5,550 per month w.e.f. 1.7.91 at this Institute in the pay scale of Rs. 5100-6300 plus NPA. Yours faithfully, Sd/-
(B.K. NARANG) Sr. Administrative Officer.
13. On 21.3.1994, the second respondent had written to the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare supporting the case of the petitioner and wrote in the following terms:
No. 1-3/90-Admn.I 21st March, 1994 The Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, (Deptt. of Family Welfare) Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi.
[Attn: Smt. A. Kishore, Under Secretary C&G].
Sub: Protection of Basic Pay of Dr. M.C. Gupta, Professor of Education & Training, NIHFW, New Delhi - Re Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter No. A.45011/17/92-C&G dated 13th December, 1993 on the above subject and to say that Dr. M.C. Gupta, in his latest representation which was forwarded to you, has requested for fixation of pay under FR.22. Dr. Gupta was appointed as a direct recruit Professor of Education & Training in the scale of pay of Rs. 4500-7300+NPA w.e.f 17th July, 1991 (forenoon). Before joining the post of Professor, Education & Training in this Institute he was holding the post of Addl. Professor at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in the scale of pay of Rs. 5100-6300 and he was in receipt of a basic salary of Rs. 5550/-. The Selection Committee while recommending him for appointment as Professor in this Institute also recommended for protection of the pay drawn by Dr. Gupta in the AIIMS. However, he was granted only five advance increments with the approval of the Chairman of the Governing Body under Bye-law 23 of the Bye-laws of the Institute. The rules and regulations applicable to Central Government employees are also applicable to the employees of this Institute under Bye-law 34 of the Bye laws of the Institute. FR 22 provides for fixation of initial pay of a Government servant who is appointed to a post on a time scale of pay. Dr. Gupta was in the service of the AIIMS before joining the Institute. Both in this Institute and in the AIIMS the rules and instructions issued by the Central Government are being followed in these matters. It is, therefore, felt that the pay of Dr. Gupta can be fixed under FR 22.
14. When the petitioner applied to the second respondent for consideration for the appointment in Column 23 the petitioner had stated in reply to the query "No. I would like to have five advance increments over my salary at the AIIMS".
FR 22 which is relevant reads as under :
FR 22(1).
The initial pay of a Government servant who is appointed to a post on a time-scale of pay is regulated as follows:
(a)(1) Where a Government servant holding a post, other than a tenure post, in a substantive or temporary or officiating capacity is promoted or appointed in a substantive, temporary or officiating capacity, as the case may be, subject to the fulfillment of the eligibility conditions as prescribed in the relevant Recruitment Rules, to another post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attaching to the post held by him, his initial pay in the time-scale of the higher post shall be fixed at the stage next above the notional pay arrived at by increasing his pay in respect of the lower post held by him regularly by an increment at the stage at which such pay has accrued or rupees twenty five only, whichever is more.
Save in cases of appointment on deputation to an ex-cadre post, or to a post on ad hoc basis, the Government servant shall have the option, to be exercised within one month from the date of promotion or appointment, as the case may be, to have the pay fixed under this rule from the date of such promotion or appointment or to have the pay fixed initially at the stage of the time-scale of the new post above the pay in the lower grade or post from which he is promoted on regular basis, which may be refixed in accordance with this rule on the date of accrual of next increment in the scale of the pay of the lower grade, or post. In cases where an ad hoc promotion is followed by regular appointment without break, the option is admissible as from the date of initial appointment/ promotion, to be exercised within one month from the date of such regular appointment :
Provided that where a Government servant is, immediately before his promotion or appointment on regular basis to a higher post, drawing pay at the maximum of the time-scale of the lower post, his initial pay in the time-scale of the higher post shall be fixed at the stage next above the pay notionally arrived at by increasing his pay in respect of the lower post held by him on regular basis by an amount equal to the last increment in the time scale of the lower post or rupees twenty-five, whichever is more. (2) When the appointment to the new post does not involve such assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance, he shall draw as initial pay, the stage of the time-scale which is equal to his pay in respect of the old post held by him on regular basis, or, if there is no such stage, the stage next above his pay in respect of the old post held by him on regular basis:
Provided further that in a case where pay is fixed at the same stage, he shall continue to draw that pay until such time as he would have received an increment in the time-scale of the old post, in cases where pay is fixed at the higher stage, he shall get his next increment on completion of the period when an increment is earned in the time-scale of the new post.
On appointment on regular basis to such a new post, other than to an ex-cadre post on deputation, the Government servant shall have the option, to be exercised within one month from the date of such appointment, for fixation of his pay in the new post with effect from the date of appointment to the new post or with effect from the date of increment in the old post.
(3) When appointment to the new post is made on his own request under Sub-rule (a) of Rule 15, of the said rules, and the maximum pay in the time-scale of that post is lower than his pay in respect of the old post held regularly, he shall draw that maximum as his initial pay.
(b) If the conditions prescribed in Clause (a) are not ful-
filled, he shall draw as initial pay on the minimum of the time scale:
Provided that, both in cases covered by Clause (a) and in cases, other than the cases of re-employment after resignation or removal or dismissal from the public service, covered by Clause (b), if he_ (1) has previously held substantively or officiated in:
(i) the same post, or
(ii) a permanent or temporary post on the same time-scale, or
(iii) a permanent post or a temporary post (including a post in a body, incorporated or not, which is wholly or substantially downed or controlled by the Government) on an identical time scale; or (2) is appointed subject to the fulfillment of the eligibility conditions as prescribed in the relevant Recruitment Rules to a tenure post on a time-scale identical with that of another tenure post which he has previously held on regular basis:
then the initial pay shall not, except in cases of reversion to parent cadre governed by Proviso (1)(III), be less than the pay, other than special pay, personal pay or any other emoluments which may be classed as pay by the President under Rule 9(21)(a)(iii) which he drew on the last occasion, and he shall count the period during which he drew that pay on a regular basis on such last and any previous occasions for increment in the stage of the time-scale equivalent to that pay. If, however, the pay last drawn by the Government servant in a temporary post had been inflated by the grant of premature increments, the pay which he would have drawn but for the grant of these increments shall, unless otherwise ordered by the authority competent to create the new post, be taken for the purpose of this proviso to be the pay which he last drew in the temporary post which he had held on a regular basis. The service rendered in a post referred to in Proviso (1)(iii) shall, on reversion to the parent cadre count towards initial fixation of pay, to the extent and subject to the conditions indicated below:
(a) the Government servant should have been approved for appointment to the particular grade or post in which the previous service is to be counted:
(b) all his seniors, except those regarded as unfit for such appointment, were serving in posts carrying the scale of pay in which benefit is to be allowed or in higher posts, whether in the Department itself or elsewhere and at least one junior was holding a post in that Department carrying the scale of pay in which the benefit is to be allowed; and
(c) the service will count from the date his junior is promoted on a regular basis and the benefit will be limited to the period the Government servant would have held the post in his parent cadre had he not been appointed to the ex-cadre post.
(II) The President may specify posts outside the ordinary line of service the holder of which may, notwithstanding the provisions of this rule and subject to such conditions as the President may prescribe, be given officiating promotion in the cadre of the service which the authority competent to order promotion may decide, and may thereupon be granted the same pay whether with or without any special pay attached to such posts as they would have received if still in the ordinary line.
(III) For the purpose of this rule, the appointment shall not be deemed to involve the assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance if the post to which it is made is on the same scale of pay as the post, other than a tenure post, which the Government servant holds on a regular basis at the time of his promotion or appointment or on a scale of pay identical therewith.
(IV) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, where a Government servant holding an ex-cadre post is promoted or appointed regularly to a post in his cadre, his pay in the cadre post will be fixed only with reference to his presumptive pay in the cadre post which he would have held but for his holding any ex-cadre post outside the ordinary line of service by virtue of which he becomes eligible for such promotion of appointment.
15. The principle enshrined in FR 22 would apply to the instant case. The point to be considered is whether the petitioner on appointment by the second respondent would be entitled to the pay protection that means whether he is entitled to draw the same salary as he was drawing if his services to be continued in AIIMS.
16. Mr. S. Vaidyalingam, learned Counsel for the second respondent submitted that the petitioner was given offer of appointment as per the terms and conditions of the bye-law and the petitioner had accepted the same. The petitioner was given 5 increments as per the Bye-laws 23. The learned Counsel for the second respondent Mr. S. Vaidyalingam submitted that when the petitioner had accepted five increments the petitioner is deemed to have waived his rights if any, to claim any scale at Rs. 5,500/- on the ground that he is entitled to pay protection. It is not an appointment of officer in Government service from one Government department to another. The petitioner offered himself to be considered for appointment for direct recruitment by an autonomous body (second respondent). Therefore, it was for all purposes a fresh appointment and therefore FR 22 would not apply.
17. The learned Counsel for the second respondent Mr. S. Vaidyalingam relied upon the terms of letter given by the petitioner which had already been extracted. The letter itself makes it clear that the petitioner had no objection for the five increments offered by the second respondent but he had clearly stated that his pay protection should be kept intact. The claim to the protection of pay is a Fundamental Right coming within the ambit of Article 16 of the constitution. Therefore, there is no question of any waiver of any Fundamental Right. The petitioner being in the medical profession who had been appointed though on direct recruitment from the AIIMS to the Organisation functioning under the Agies of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The submission made by Mr. S. Vaidyalingam the learned Counsel for the second respondent that this is not a case of appointment made from one Government to another Government department and therefore, FR 22 does not apply has absolutely no force. The view taken by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on 11.5.1992 is not conclusive on the question.
18. On the material placed on record, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to his protection of pay and he should be paid on these scales of pay he was drawing i.e. Rs. 5,500/- on the date of his appointment by the second respondent.
19. The petitioner had also claimed the following reliefs:
to issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ/direction to the respondents and allow this writ petition; to issue directions to protect the basic pay of the petitioner and under FR 22;
to make the payment of the petitioner's dues as stated in para 10 alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date it became due to the petitioner till the date of payment; to direct the respondents to complete the service book within a reasonable period and show the same to the petitioner. to issue necessary directions to allow the petitioner to work as Professor and Head of the Department; to direct the respondent No. 3 to count the service rendered at AIIMS for purposes of pension and carry forward of leave and to procure pensionary benefits from AIIMS as has been agreed by the AIIMS vide their letter dated 27.11.1993 (Annexure-J); to direct the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to preclude respondent No. 3 from writing the ACR of the Petitioner.
20. Mr. S. Vaidyalingam the learned Counsel for the second respondent that the petitioner has not been confirmed and the second respondent is in the process of considering the case of the petitioner for confirmation. In CW No. 2012/98 filed by the petitioner which is coming up for final disposal on 6.11.1998 certain points relating to the question of confirmation have to be considered in that writ petition and the particulars relating to the service rendered by the petitioner had to be considered in that writ petition.
21. Mr. B.K. Aggarwal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that whatever may be the question involved in the C.W. No. 2012/98 the second respondent is bound to get the service book of the petitioner from the AIIMS; even for the purpose of considering the question of confirmation. Once he had become the employee of the second respondent, the service book of the petitioner cannot be retained by his previous employer and that is essential for the petitioner with reference to his service condition with the second respondent.
22. Mr. S. Vaidyalingam, the learned Counsel for the second respondent referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent submitted that the service book is not being summoned and the petitioner had not been confirmed as I had already mentioned above the second respondent is in the process of confirming the petitioner. I am unable to appreciate the stand of the second respondent in not getting the service book of the petitioner from the AIIMS. Once the petitioner had been appointed in the second respondent Organisation, the service rendered by him to the previous employer would be absolutely essential for the petitioner whether the appointment is temporary or permanent and whether the petitioner is to be confirmed or not. lt is stated in the counter affidavit even without looking into the service book of the petitioner that there had been certain discrepancies in the particulars given by him at the time of appointment.
Even coming to the decision on these facts service book is a must. As an employer the second respondent ought to have obtained the service book from the AIIMS. The petitioner is justified in asking for the relief for direction to the second respondent to get the service book of the petitioner from the AIIMS.
23. The petitioner has prayed for direction to the third respondent to count the service rendered at AIIMS for the purpose of pension and carry forward of leave and to procure pensionary benefits from AIIMS and this can be considered only if when the service book made available. As and when the second respondent gets the service book of the petitioner the second respondent shall issue necessary orders relating to the service condition of the petitioner while considering the case of the petitioner for confirmation. The question of reckoning of the service rendered by the petitioner in AIIMS would be considered at the appropriate stage and this question is left open.
24. The petitioner has prayed for a direction that the third respondent should be precluded for writing the ACR of the petitioner. The officer holding the post of Director has since been retired from service and what is noting made by the third respondent in the ACR of the petitioner is not known. Therefore, such direction cannot be issued in this writ petition. At the relevant time when ACRs communicated to the petitioner if any, are adverse, the petitioner shall be at liberty to agitate the same and all points taken here he shall be entitled to agitate in case he is obliged to challenge the same.
25. The petitioner has claimed two payments as mentioned in para 10 of the writ petition that para reads as under :
That respondent No. 3 has not made the following payments despite repeated requests and representations, which are annexed herewith as Annexure I collectively :
(a) Payment of Rs. 3,020.80
(b) Payment of Rs. 24,700.50
26. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent submitted that all payments due to the petition had been paid. The petitioner had relied upon Annexure-l collectively. ln the counter affidavit at page 16 para 10 the answer given by the second respondent is not effectively disposed of the claim made by the petitioner. Therefore, the second respondent had not given any specific answer. Therefore it has become necessary for this Court to give direction to the second respondent to consider the case of the petitioner. The second respondent shall pass appropriate orders in this regard on or before 31.12.1998.
27. The writ petition in the above terms stands allowed . The second respondent shall pass appropriate order directing to pay to the petitioner all arrears which is payable to him without any interest on or before 31.12.1998.
28. The second respondent is also directed to write to the AIIMS and get the service book of the petitioner with all relevant documents on or before 31.12.1998. There shall be no order as to costs.