Central Administrative Tribunal - Gauhati
Dr Bhupendra Goswami vs All India Council For Technical ... on 20 February, 2026
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
GUWAHATI BENCH
Original Application No. 040/00037/2023
Date of order: This, the 20th day of February 2026
HON'BLE MR. SANJIV KUMAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Dr. Bhupendra Goswami
Son of Late Tapeswar Goswami
Resident of Bye Lane No. 1
Nizarapur, Near Assam Aurvedic College
P.O. - Jalukbari, District - Kamrup (M) Assam.
...Applicant
By Advocates: Sri S. Sarma and Smt. B. Devi
- Versus -
1. Union of India
Represented by the Secretary
Ministry of Higher Education
127-C, Sastri Bhawan, Govt. of India
New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Chairman
All India Council for Technical Education
Nelson Manldela Marg
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi - 110070.
...Respondents
By Advocates: Sri S.K. Ghosh, Addl. CGSC for R. No. 1
Sri P. Hazarika for Sri S.C. Keyal, R. No. 2
Date of Hearing: 04.02.2026 Date of Order: 20.02.2026
PRASANNA Digitally signed by
PRASANNA
BASUMATARYBASUMATARY
O.A. No.37/2023
2
ORDER
PER MR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A):
This O.A. has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:
"8.1 To direct the respondents to count the service of the applicant from 1.6.1991 to 30.06.2022 for the purpose of extending the consequential benefits like gratuity, leave encashment and the pensionary benefit.
8.2 To direct the respondents to release the arrear salary of the applicant w.e.f. 1.4.2013 to 26.2.2019 and to pay interest @ 21% on the delayed settlement of the same.
8.3 To direct the respondents to release the gratuity and leave encashment of the applicant from his entire service period i.e. from 1.6.1991 to 30.06.2022.
8.4 Cost of the application.
8.5 pass any such order/orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper."
2. This Tribunal vide Order dated 20.11.2015 in O.A. No. 373/2013 (Annexure-A/18) directed the respondents to treat the O.A. as a comprehensive representation of the applicants therein and take a decision on the reliefs claimed by the applicants and/or regularize their services and grant other service benefits which are being extended to other PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY O.A. No.37/2023 3 Government employees under the Govt. of India w.e.f. the date of their initial appointment within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Respondents vide order dated 20.05.2016 passed a speaking order communicating that matter is in process and after about 3 years the judgment has been complied with vide order dated 01.01.2019 and decision was taken for absorption of the applicant which was followed by the order of appointment dated 20.02.2019 (Annexure-A/23) as Project Officer at HQ, to which he joined on 27.02.2019 (Annexure-A/24).
3. The pay of the applicant was protected as on 31.03.2013, but he was denied of the arrears salary w.e.f. 01.04.2013 to 26.02.2019. However, under the (NISTECHR) scheme where there was direction for immediate utilisation of service was in progress. The respondents refused to grant the relief to the applicant whereas in case of a similarly situated employee (Mr Anindya Bhattacharya) like that of the applicant the PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY O.A. No.37/2023 4 BOG took a decision that he should be given all consequential service benefits as if he worked during the break period.
4. As per the applicant, in case of similarly situated employees, who filed OA No. 330/143/2015 before the Allahabad Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal got the relief vide order dated 10.01.2019 (Annexure- A/26). The applicant made representations after representations and one of the representations has been replied to which is impugned in this OA indicating the fact that without intervention of the Tribunal no relief could be granted. Applicant has also prayed for similar relief as has already been extended to his similar colleagues by the CAT, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in OA No. 330/143/2015.
5. The respondent No. 2 filed affidavit in opposition wherein it is stated that the applicant is an erstwhile employee of Nodal Centre of National Technical Manpower Information System (NTMIS) and PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY O.A. No.37/2023 5 he joined AICTE on 27.02.2019 as Project Officer on supernumerary post with pay fixed at Rs.31793+GP Rs.7600 in the pay scale of PB-3, Rs.15600-39100 GP Rs.7600 plus usual allowances as per Council's Rules. On his representation of counting of his past service, the matter was taken at the MoE vide letter No. 101- 31/B1/Admn/Pers/2015/17712 dt. 09.06.2022 for decision of the Ministry. Vide letter No. 33-1/2022- TSII/NTMIS(Pt) dt. 31.8.2022, it was communicated by the Ministry with consultation of IFD of the Ministry that he was absorbed in AICTE on 27.2.2019 in compliance of Order passed by CAT Order dated 3.11.2016. The applicant was not on AICTE roll for the intervening period of the scheme closure i.e., 1.4.2013 to till his joining in the AICTE on absorption. Hence, prior contractual service may not be eligible for counting of calculation of Gratuity, unless the Hon'ble CAT's order specifies otherwise (Annexure-A/1). PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY O.A. No.37/2023 6
6. As per the respondents, AICTE has paid all his retirement benefits accordingly and with regard to disbursal of salary from 01.04.2014 to 26.02.2019, the scheme had already come to a closure on 31.03.2013, the question of his further continuation within the scheme does not arise. Hence, he cannot be paid salary beyond 31.03.2013. Moreover, the new plan scheme i.e., National Information System on Technical Human Resource (NISTECHR) in place of NTMIS to engage the erstwhile NTMIS staff as recommended by Bhatt Committee, did not start and therefore there was no question of taking his service and consequential release of salary grant to the Nodal Centre by AICTE. The applicant has been released full amount of salary arrears which was due to him as per 6th Central Pay Commission and there is no deviation on the part of answering respondent so far release of arrear salary is concerned.
PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY O.A. No.37/2023 7
7. As per respondent No. 2, the post in which the applicant was appointed is supernumerary, which is treated as ex-cadre post in AICTE. His appointment is not against the sanctioned post, hence, question of granting gratuity, leave encashment and other pensionary benefits does not arise as the applicant had been appointed in AICTE from 13.02.2019 and no benefit of previous engagement can be acceded to.
8. The applicant by way of rejoinder as well as additional affidavit has stated that the respondents have not placed on record his grievance of not treating him at par with other similarly situated employees to whom the benefit of counting the past service and arrears has been granted. The respondents are harping on getting judicial order from CAT even after implementing the judgment passed by the other Benches of CAT in respect of similarly situated employees. He has also brought to notice that similar relief has been extended to his colleagues and to PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY O.A. No.37/2023 8 demonstrate the same, he has annexed order passed by the Allahabad Bench in O.A. No. 330/143/2015 (Annexure-26 to OA) and CAT, Allahabad Bench has issued notice for contempt dated 04.09.2025, 06.10.2025 and 16.10.2025 as Annexure-A, B and C in additional affidavit.
9. I have heard Shri S. Sarma, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri S.K. Ghosh, learned Addl. CGSC for respondent No. 1 and Shri P. Hazarika for Shri S.C. Keyal, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.
10. Shri S. Sarma, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that one similarly situated employee, namely, Shri Anindya Bhattacharya, who was absorbed in BOPT, Kolkata got retired on 31.03.2020. In his case, a Board of Governors (BOG) meeting was held on 05.03.2020 for extending the consequential benefits like gratuity, leave encashment and pensionary benefits on the date of his superannuation scheduled on 31.03.2020. But no such PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY O.A. No.37/2023 9 consideration was meted out to the applicant despite similarly placed. This specific statement was made by the applicant in the O.A. at para 4.37 and the respondents in their written statement, did not rebut the said statement and stated 'no comments'. Shri Sarma also referred the case of the Co-ordinate Bench of CAT, Allahabad Bench in O.A. No. 330/143/2015 wherein vide order dated 10.01.2019 passed order releasing arrears of similarly situated employees.
11. I have gone through the facts placed on record and considered the submissions made by both sides. After hearing both the parties, a clarification was sought from the respondents whether the applicant has parity with regard to the other persons mentioned in the O.A. as well as applicant in the order given by CAT, Allahabad Bench as the applicant is claiming salary and other benefits citing similar circumstances. PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY O.A. No.37/2023 10
10. Respondents have placed communication dated 03.02.2026 which states that (i) CAT, Allahabad Bench has not directed the case to be treated as precedent for other cases and applicant is not eligible for payment of salary for the intervening period from 01.04.2013 on the basis of 'no work no pay'.
11. The present applicant was appointed as Computer Operator on 27.05.1991 under NTMIS scheme under Ministry of Education and the scheme was transferred to AICTE in 1993. NTMIS scheme was closed on 31.03.2013 and salary of the applicant was released up to 31.03.2013 as per 5th CPC. Bhat Committee which was constituted to explore the possibilities of the absorption of staff of Nodal Centres recommended on 04.08.2012 for absorption of the staff and prepared list of eligible candidates which included the name of the applicant. A new scheme NISTECHR was implemented w.e.f. 01.04.2013 and MoU was signed between AICTE and IAMR and staff of PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY O.A. No.37/2023 11 Nodal Centres was to be considered for absorption with age/qualification/ experience relaxation; in case no post is available in host institution, nearby institutes to be considered failing which supernummary post to be created. The issues relating to absorption was not settled as Assam Engineering College vide letter dated 30.12.2013 stated their inability to absorb the staff of Nodal Centres.
This Tribunal vide letter dated 20.11.2015 directed the respondents to dispose the representation which was done by respondents vide order dated 01.01.2019 (Annexure-A/22). However, the applicant has filed this O.A. seeking benefits due to him.
12. In the present case, the respondents have not disputed that certain employees, who were similarly placed as the applicant and arose out of the same scheme, have been granted the benefit of counting of past service and consequential monetary benefits. No distinguishing feature has been pointed out by the PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY O.A. No.37/2023 12 respondents so as to justify denial of the same benefit to the applicant. It is a fact that applicant's in various centres have approached CAT and were absorbed and paid arrears.
In the present case, the respondents have not disputed that certain employees, who were similarly placed as the applicant and arose out of the same scheme, have been granted the benefit of counting of past service and consequential monetary benefits. No distinguishing feature has been pointed out by the respondents so as to justify denial of the same benefit to the applicant. It is a fact that applicant's in various centres have approached CAT and were absorbed and paid arrears. In O.A. No. 330/143/2015 before the CAT, Allahabad Bench, the applicants therein prayed for arrear salary since 01.09.2013. The Allahabad Bench having considered all the aspects, vide Order dated 10.01.2019, passed following orders:
"38. From the arguments and submissions of respondents, it is evident that respondent no. 1 to 3 PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY O.A. No.37/2023 13 have repeatedly mentioned that responsibility for absorption/redeployment of the applicants is the responsibility of respondent no. 4 whereas respondent no. 4 in his submissions has clearly indicated that it is the responsibility of respondent no. 2 and 3 to ensure that staff is absorbed/ deployed in terms of Bhatt Committee Report and the decision taken in the meeting chaired by Secretary, MHRD. It is also brought on record that cases of similarly placed staff has been decided by Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal and the order has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai. I that order clear directives have been given to MHRD and AICTE to absorb these applicants immediately in any of the institutes of MHRD or AICTE and to also release all arrears of salary and allowance extending the benefit as recommended by the 6th Pay Commission. In the present OA also as an interim relief, directives have already been given to respondents to keep reserve one post of UDC and one post of Assistant for applicant no. 3 and 2 respectively. MHRD & AICTE have taken necessary action following order dated 17.08.2016 of CAT Mumbai Bench in OA Nos. 268 and 269 of 2015 which w-as upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai for the similarly placed persons. Similar action be taken for the applicants also by MHRD & AICTE
39. In view of the above mentioned, the respondent no. 1 and 2 are directed to release all arrears of salary and allowances by extending the benefits as recommended by the 6th Pay Commissioner due to the applicants and take immediate steps to absorb these applicants in BOAT Kanpur or in any of the institutes of MHRD or AICTE, in the event the replaced scheme NISTECHR is not operating from the Nodal Centre at Kanpur, within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of this Order.
40. With the above directions the OA is disposed of."
PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY O.A. No.37/2023 14
13. The contention that the applicant was appointed against a supernumerary post cannot be a valid ground for denial, particularly when such absorption itself was pursuant to judicial directions and was adopted uniformly as a mechanism to absorb erstwhile scheme employees.
14. It is also well settled that an employee cannot be made to suffer for administrative delay or inaction, especially when he/she was otherwise eligible and similarly placed employees have already been granted relief.
We do not find any reason to take a different view and the present O.A. is squarely covered by the order passed in O.A. 330/143/2015 by CAT, Allahabad Bench.
15. In view of the above facts and settled position of law, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that denial of consequential service benefits to the applicant is arbitrary and discriminatory and cannot be sustained.
PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY O.A. No.37/2023 15
16. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed. The respondents are directed to:
(i) Count the past service rendered by the applicant under the NTMIS Scheme for the purpose of extending all consequential service benefits:
(ii) Release arrears of salary for the intervening period from 01.04.2013 to 26.02.2019, as admissible, in terms of the benefits already extended to similarly situated employees;
(iii) Recalculate and release gratuity, leave encashment and pensionary benefits by taking into account the entire qualifying service from 01.06.1991 to 30.06.2022.
17. The above exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case, the above dues are not paid within a stipulated period of three months, interest will be paid at the applicable rate of the GPF in the relevant years, from the due date of payment. No order as to costs.
(SANJIV KUMAR) MEMBER(A) PB PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY O.A. No.37/2023