Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Dr Dashrath vs M/O Shipping on 18 October, 2023
} OA No.seG/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAT BENCH, MUMBAI
ORIGINAL APPLICATION Nv.690 OF 2016
RS 3. gs,2 Bn Reg St. es Rae RHR
Maced this Wednesday, the 18" day of Ocioner, ovo
CORAM : MS. HARVINDER KAUR OBEROI, MEMBER (6)
MR. SHRIKRISHNA, MEMBER (A)
De Dashrath Aged about 61 years, Presently posted as Faculty {Maths}
an c antract basis, Indian Maritime University- Mumbai Campus,
Pal Beach Block (TSC), Rarave, Nerul, Navi Mambai 400 706.
Res idential Address : R-603 ARM Enclave CHS Lid,
Plot No.1, Sector 7, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210, ~ Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Vishal P. Shirke)
Yersus
i Union of India, Through the Seeretary, Ministry of Shipping,
'Transport Bhawan, 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi PPO G01.
+ THrector General of Shipping, 9" Floor, Beta Building - TA
'Techno Campus, Kanfurmerg (Bast), Mammal 490 042.
2
aS
Vice Chancellor, Indian Maritime LU iniversity, East Coast Road,
Urthandi, Chennai 600 119. * Respondents
(By Advocates Shri N.K.Rajperohit and Shri BRAG. Walia}
Reserved on 26.07.2023
Pronounced an 18.0. 2023
ORDER
Por: Shei Krishna, Member (A) Applicant is aggriey red by the impugned order passed by ihe respondents vide order dated 15.09.2016 which was received by the applicant on 19.09.2015 (Annexe A A-1) to refix his pay avale Re 9 000/- to Pay Band UE Bs.15.600-39 100 with Grade Pay of ies OA Wo G8G/20 16 Rs.7.600/- with effect from 01.01.2006 til the date of pee ea superannuation on 30.1].2018. It is submitted that alleged excess payment recelved by him during this period is also to be recovered from him end the anplicant is re-designated as Lecturer (Maths) from OLOL2006 tL the date of his superannuation as against the designation of Associate Professar awarded to him during the said period. Agerieved by the above order passed by the respondents, t applicant has approached this Tribunal on 26.09.2016 under Section -
19 af the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relets:-
Bey Test at mg 2h Ps FG Shey TERE eee eps &fa). That the Hon'ble Tribunal muy be graciously pleased to Pe eall for the cause from the Respondenis and afer examin! nig ihe rt, same to quash and set aside the impugned ender daied 13"
September 2028 and hold and declare the dpplleant iy entities revised t IGE pay seaie since uGC poy scale fs been are cen by t . , inp paNonally fro one OSE er pleased to ode. that this Hon 'ble Tribynal be fot meet ih Respondents to Continue fo grant pension te ihe Applicant as per the PPO No $8400!) 5062] 7 dated HO) 2018 based on the pay drawn by Abn in the last month of his service wader the current UGC pay scale, &f{eh Any other end further relia ax this Hon'ble fethunal map deem fit in the nainre and clronmutances af the case.
Bd) that this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased io grant eosty of this Application, ™
2. Applicant alsa prayed for interim relief which was wranted by the Tribunal vide order dated 13.10.2016 staying the yas CVA No de0Q2018 recovery of alleged excess payment from the applicant.
3 Brief facts as narrated in the OA are that the applicant was selected as Lecturer in Mathematics at Training Ship Rajendra, Ministry of Shipping and Transport, Government af India and appointed on 03.01.1984 in the pay scale o PRs. 700-1300/.
He has requested to grant him UOC pay scales which were considerably higher than the Central Pay Seales from the Goverment of India, Ministry of Shipping. His case for grant of said LUIGC pay seales was forwarded by the then Director General of Shipping vide his letter No.PE 3-TIWOS dated 26.04.1999 (Annexure A-2) by recommending his case for grant of pay scales gince he fulfilled qualifications under UGC norms for grant of UGC pay sodles, 3.4. The then Director Genet 'al of Shipping stated that the anplinant was eligible for UGC pay scales with effect from 01 Q8.1987 being the date on whieh the college ic. Training Ship Chanakya was affiliated to the University of Mumbai. It was flurther stated in the said letter that the applicant had completed five years of regular service as Lecturer in Mathematics on 02.01.1989 and. thereatter, recommended as being eligible for senior pay scale of Res 3,000- § 600/- with effect from 02.014 @89 coupled with the designation a OA No6og 201s Lecturer (Senior Scale). The applicant further submits that the recommendation of the DG Shipping vide letter dated 26.04.1999 (Annexure A-2) came to be prooessed and the Government of India, stry of Surface Transport, New Delhi as if then was known vide its order No. A-3302557/02-MT dated 06.08.1999 CAnnexure A-3) directed grant of UGC pay scale of Rs £000-5,.000- wet 02.01.1989 on notional basis and further placed him in the UGC scale of Rg.12.000-420-18,300/ on actual basis wed O241.1997 and the said order was issued with the approval of the Seeretary of Ministry of Shipping.
3.2. The applicant fiether submits that the Career Advancement Scheme for Teachers as recommended by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, vide iis Notification No. 1-32/2006-U.Y/01 G) dated 31.12.2008 directed to the Secretary, University Grants Commission (UGC), New Delhi for implementation of this scheme wet 01.01.2006 (Annexure A-4).
Applicant has invited Tribunal's attention to the Para-2(a) (ix) which directs that Incumbent Readers and Lecturers (Selection Grade) who have completed three years in the pay scale of Ra. 12,000-18,300/ on 01.01.2006 ave to be placed in Pay Band-4; Rs.37,400-67,Q00/- with AGP of Ks.9,000/ coupled with being re-designated as Associate ta:
OA No. O90/20 18Professor. T he Applicant submits that he made a req presentation to the Captain Superintendent, Training Ship Chanakya to grant him the revised corresponding UG as per Ministry of Human Rescue Development (MMRD), Notification dates 31.12.2008. The said representation dated 03.02.2009 was forwarded by the Director General of Shipping vide Us Ietter No PB-O-TROO1-Pt dated 18.03.2000 to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Shipping (Annexure A-8).
33. The Applicant submits that the sald proposal put up by the Director General of Shipping on 18.03.2009 was not acted upan and the Applicant came to be granted the central government pay Sc ale PR; Rs.15,600-39,100/- with Grade Pay Rs.7,600/- wel OLOL2006 vide letter No. A-11014/1/2009-MT dated 14.05.2009, (Annexure A-7), The Applicant substi that he ee to make a second representation dated 03.07.2009 (Annexure 8). The same came to be forwarded by the Director General of Shr hipping vide : a wis letter No: PB-STR (1VOl-Pi dated 18/19" August 2009 (Annexure A-9). This wag once again farmed down on account of teen"
non-application of mind vide the Minisiry of Shipping letter No: A-
LLOLANTS000-MT dated 05.11.2009 (Annexure A-10), § MAINO 8O/2018 3.4, The Applicant further submits that he refused the pay Scale of PR-3 Cs. 18,600-39.100/) with Grade Pay of Rs.7,600- and made one more representation on 10.11.2009 (Annexure A-11), on the ground that he had already been granted the UGC pay scale with effect fram 2.1. 1989 nationally and from 02.01.1997 actually that too after approval thereof by none other than the erstwhile Secretary, Ministry of Shipping with due approval of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, which can be seen from. a careful perusal of letter dated 06.08.1999 CAnnexure A-3). The Applicant submits that afier a fresh round of application of mind, at the level of the Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, an order carne to be issued being order NoA-L1014/1/2000-MT dated. 27.11.2009 (Annexure A-12). A careful perusal of this letter makes clear that the said letter was isued at the lev el of Under Secretary afler approval thereto t atthe highest level.
3.4. 'The applicant submits that he was not granted ACP/MACP during his entire service as he was placed in UGC Scale. The applicant respectiully submits that he wag placed in revised UGC scale PR-4, Rs 57400-67000 with AGP of Rs.8.000/ wel 01.01.2006 and was designated as Assistant Professor by Indian Maritime University vide their office order No. 7 OA No. Geo/2016 IMUPREG/O07TS/2010 dated 13.10.2010 (Annexure A-15). The applicant was re-designated as Associate Professor wal O1.01.2006 by Indian Maritime University vide their letter Noa, TRUNUGIMUMCA/2018 dated 07/05/2013 (Annexure Asia).
3.6. The Applicant submits that Gis drawing UGC pay scales began as early as 1989 notionally, 1997 actually ar id continued as such tmtl his superannuation on 30.11.2015. The attempt of the Respondent vide the impugned order fo re-invent the wheel by trying to push 4 back the Applicant to the Central Pay Scale afer approval of bis case at the level of Secretary, Ministry of Shipping with clearance of the same by ihe Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure is clearly a diabolical exercise to harass his selfless and highly regpecied faculty after close to 32 long years, which requires an urgent interference at the insiance of this Hon'ble Tribunal 3.9. The Applicant farther submits that he joined through UIPSC as gayernment servant and by an Act of fovfament, he was Pal of deemed deputation te Indian Maritime University, which came to be - created by the IMU Act 2008. The said Act envisages transfer of all assets including the various branches imparting duc ration to mariners from the DG Shipping te said university under Section 49 where as under sub-section G) there is an option for the central 8 OA No GSO2016 government servants like the Applicant to continue to setniita H government servant on deemed deputation or alternatively under sub-
section CD join the University. The Applicant chose to continue a deemed deputationist until the date of his simeranmuation on 30.11.2015. The aforesaid notwithstanding, the cardinal issue for consideration before this Hon'ble Tribunal is as to when the Applicant was already granted the UGC pay scale and the date from which he was granted is (2.01. 1989. It is, therefore, clear that the Applicant Is entitled to revised UGC pay scales and consequently tl impugned order holding that the Applicant is dis-entitled to the same on the purported and fallacious ground of he being a deemed deputationist and henee a Central Government servant is not tenable in view of the impugned order in para 4.2 wherein he refers to the scales of Rs.3,000-5,000/- and Rs.12,000-420-18,300/- which were granted to the Applicant but were deliberately, not referred to and an attempt made to set the clock back for the Applicant based on fallacious propositions, requires immediate interference, 3.8 In the light of the aforesaid facts, since the Applicant sever ver drew salary in the pay scale PB-«3 (Rs. 15,900-39.100/-) with Grade Pay Rs.7,600/- tl the date of his superannuation, the question of fining the Applicant in the pay scale PB-3 with Grade Pay Rs.
9 OA No o8o/20T6 7,600/- now is in gross violation of the principle of fixation of pension being based on either last 10 months average or last mont Na pay. Additionally, the applicamt was never grant ted with ACP) MACP 4 YT ae since he was granted UGC pay scales. rhe Applicant submits that the said order passed on 15.09.2016 has nof yet been acted upon and if acted upon would not only end up in the Applicant's drawing pension on the basis of salary which he has never drew in the last 10 years of his service but also resulting in recovery of substantial 4 On notice, the respon dents have resisted the OA by t fling affidavit in reply dated 17-01-2017 and stated that on 14.11.2008, the Indian Maritime University (hereinafter referred as "TMU was set up as a teaching-cum-a filisting university by an Aet af Parliament jue. the IML Act 2008 Gx enceforta called The Act) by merging 7 awhile Institutes: 1. Training Ship p Chanakya, Mumbai: 2. Marine Engineering and Research lostiiute, Mamba; 3. Lal Bahadur Shastri Centre for Advanced Maritime Studies and Researe sh, Mumbai: 4. Marine Engineering end Resoarc . Institute, Kolkata; 3. Indian Institute of Port Management, Kolkata, 6, National Maritune Academy, Chennai; and 7. National Ship Design and Research Contre, Visakhapatnam. Prior to IMU, institutes number | to 4 were pet ea OA No 690/2016 Central Government Inatitutes and their employees were Central Government employees whereas Institutes number 5 to 7 were ~e 'Registered Societies' and their employees were Saciely employees. The legal effect of a "merger" is that the lazal identity of the merging wits stands extinguished. Thus, the above F institutes stood extinguished when they were merged into IMU on 14.01.2008. Section 49 of IMU Act 2t "B08 states that all the assets and employees of these 7 inatitutes stand transferred to IMU. (Annexure R-1).
4.1, Respondents submit that Section 49() of the IMU Act 2008 deals with employees of Institutes number 1 to 4. It terms them deemed deputationisis' swho can continue to aval! af Central Government pay, perks, pension, CGHS, residential accommodation and other conditions of service Hil their retirement if they so wish. Section 49() deals with employees of Institutes number S to 7. Since these 3 institutes Gvhich were Registered Societies) stand extinguished, the employees of these 3 institutes are full-fledged IMU employees bat with the option to continue to avail of pay, perks and other conditions of service of their erstwhile institutes until their ratiremerit if they so wish. Section 49{i1) deals with employees recruited ta IMD after 14/11/2008 or those employees (coming under Section 49G) and GD whe opt for IMU's terms and cendil ions af is OS No. GoQ/2016 "y service, These employees of IMU under section 49G1) do nol enjoy further, it is submitted thet [MU employees under section 49(0) are
2 a ATES aw Awe POL ode oy ad "nk west hte sk not eniified to MACE as per Goxt of India rules anc will solely be governed by the service rules of the Autonomous Body Le. IMU.
4.2. Respandenis submit that the Ministry of Shipping issued terms ayn and conditions of Government | employees af Institutes number | to"
an O8. 16.2009 (Annexure R-2). However, in the month of February bo 2016, VC, TMU has approached | Ministry of Shipping with the or proposal that para 6 (vl) & (vil) of this Ministry's Order dated eee a : 10.2009 may be amended. The said paras re slated ta Disc Authority/Appellate Authority and pre famotions ie "Deemed 2 Deputationists' of IMU. This proposal wa ¢ forwarded to DoP&T Tor their advice. In reply dated 03.06.2016, DeP&T stated that IMU shall process the cases of promotion of the employess who WIL Government for approval. In the matter of disciplinary authority, PoPST reiterated that disciplinary proceeding in the case oF deputation is gaverned under the Rule 20 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, L965, The borrowing authority has the power to lnitiate proceadings against such persons but cannot impose (1) a penalty without 2 OA Ns 6802016 consulting the lending authority (i) if the proposal is to impose a major penalty, the services of the employees \ will be replaced at the disposal of the lending authority. This is without prejudice to any special terms of the deemed deputation. Accordingly, Ministry has issued clarification to TMU on 15.07.2016 (Annexure R-3) reiterating Ministry's order dated 08.10.2009. Accordingly, Director General of Shipping [DG(S)] remains the Controlling Authority & Ministry of Shipping, the Appell ats Authority. Hence, all Orders of IMU relating to 'Deemed Deputationists' under section 491) of IMU Act, 2008 viz., Pay fixation, Pension, MACP and disciplinary cases need to be confirmed by DG(S) Ministry of Shipping before being seat to PAQ, Shipping I Mumbai for release of payitient. In the present OLA. applicant was a 'Deemed Deputationist under se ection 491) of IMU Act, 2008 and hence ht is services are governed by all conditions laid down by DoP&T, Government of India as amended from time to time, They submit that all matters regarding fixation of pay ete are subject to recovery in case of excess payment or subject to arrears in ease af short fixation. Accordingly this being an Administrative matter haséd on existing rules of the Government of India, does not | require grant of reasonable opportunity, as the pay fixation are done as per clearly laid down Rules of Government of India as amended LE : r * a wi -
vecd of as o ae aoe ee & a ne ns ia pe} PF; Ly a8 i oy a ie no aol Ms "af, opeed vee asd % hs 8 ri a c Es i HES | Ho & opr re lated } th a oy ier Cy Oo, et : he hehe me % : Fa io = eee cS wa ae 4, oe OM rs ae eed ret ee feet te we og oa og |e aan Ds ee por be, bape aoe oe, Yan fey ee Fae a cb fia i a be Be EE BeOS ee Be ae a wt can tet 3 oa 5 te Tee OB eee ee Peres: ped epee --< Sel eas aoe Oy ees ome fae faa ne oe) P ee Meee £2 ap Ps 7 ees, tees a Rend ae seet co Past ao a ese a tte Pane S ae n eet oa ob ty oe <a a a bx] cs ee oa ea fo ay Rl Ee ty GeO Ls " aes to pea bet a a ae Re OO jl ; ; F t i 7 Ab oF ' ee, 'y ey Sop OB Not Oy, RP wit thy Pd Lb, pad Os eat. thy eo OR vem 2D ee ion whet Be Fas cas pe eee we pik 4 e: ame ee adgs® 3 C3 oh fe i iS e 'en: rier one te ES at ts oe : "heed = a oy Bs ae ae aa fo Soe ay per bes Fs oe Ee aed ra. ty BE eh fr . ed sea 8 nee 3 ey oe ods Nt ac co sorb sono me rm es a aa é ae mm SS ; oy awl Q oo o 'o we oe gy MO cs a es a nee eG wi ey OO beoead a © eee a2 reel Saat ent ee a RO tea Ald a aad 7 . sl - Pars ae je ce a ? B f, FA ae or pe ES bic ee) ee a om bol Pad A ace ed peel pest is Tey td aS ws iene ace aE S " oy ot we 3 Be Ege Po Feat a wa 0 ae w wd Pe Boe BOS aro im es ood fen ves be Si = ED Se Bs tht zs . 3 ~ Eas an whe eye & o Bo = Me, a si poe Se weed ee) a3 ' Cs? ?
sees we bad cbaak -- a 2 we bole Pad Bios " ree} baad OF ie Bisco 4 wpe "eet w; Be 7 oe me 2 fe att fa oy ms ieee Lee tea ay bed Laren! rh re t2 "ed Lo raat a 3 a Pea! fons pos fee "wasnt Fh nb " cape ih is a 4 3 Gs coos :
hx ee ws es oS 0 &, . ay re St net trey, ot : 3 Fac wet ioe ce i 2 os oe - G Bo ni Be wen ee ee oa te ote we | org ae oe ' ay oe 5 um iy 8 sd a we OFS igs Pe $ "xn as Fee 7 ory be SS har phe ee ey Os oh ear pe % 9 Re gg
- eet 5 oA by re 7S a © Bp ee ORS, ' xe. ved i a ie ; ' bm his ae Rs re eet ee as os ts ote Se gm 8 os ; ate, ¥ es ne) t} Roa a Rens Sa cae ices = ones if c 5 Se YY 42 om i S Ea z in J ot 7 facet a bo eee " oy 43 bee) Bese nt £5 ted pes es ee Go af, ood eA AS pas we ate * rps st z S pal pais ty ae aes "anes : a) ab pos oe alt weet . oe. are ape 5 ay te ws & es ine ee) : es ea S ot pa oe beeen! bog ; at rea ot : Be o * eet ; ke uy coe 3 'e £2 , fn, 7, fo, 'tt 25 $ ae A Gret com Reh, po ed £3 , os , ond a , es 5 gS os : ay cat pap (ened, ond 'to .
<a re et z yon we cred x ITS ADE viols LLLP CLIPPED, O16 60/2 ee A} oe @.
5 a nn << nd So Bo Se phe tag it, ag hd wR. oD Be ran MG mm oy ty i eh Phe, ane 4
-- 6 RS a ee woe :
fee A Ey : ge BS Ch = wt me URE oe AD Co, te ose 4, Bee , hoes, FA wat iy wren, mt" oy : ee wee ee os se ces os ma, poe OL Pe Sn teed Bene, thes | hath, mS "; oa Pope rm ty RS ge g Bite ae & :
t the et LEA x:
i + am £ Phe » pa hy Pinel oe.
lene *, 24 bea Ata oe Ponte reg cas Mathemeath:
conveyed f he SGING Was alse ¢ f £ te € Rd tg & CORUABAICQIEL re fe ser ing 4 #.
COPFES DONE ~ e Mon o i eaae ae re PPAR We.
sof ig % Pees 'AY "e 3 However, JF R Ras. not Bower eee COE Afumbai tl c {ANENEPE fe '*.
or "Hh ' "at rata OG By bee om Tea Naya i oy toh % mG EIR ae G BAe tr reataa id a ie -
omens) Sate ~ OP dy 4 Sap ee ee at a 5s Oe ad =A ag. "Ee oe ee. ome $ K x, Ne Py laced a Weby + GHEEIShe ay P é Ped 2 :
Peps Paid et Ni Maret aa Yow eS oe fie oA ay pon ae OE ty Sees: aon ORs HS Ene TM tees ah Sand Se hay eae Paes GC Pay a an of G :
gs ahah a ewe ne a lee GPRS geome J x By if iF % + RAS 3 re SN ahi SUH?2
fen, s # Fs RE MSLOH Mf Fa £ » tee Fee OF ¢ a raw min P& 4:
'er dated + xe:
x GH i 3 & cor Ad bro eS The % bing 2 Pas, oy mn oF 2 TH ot re rep & * REPO rand 4.3. The ground we 3 % and be:
rs x We m earl ares b '< ace ermcnts M8 GV oe, ae Arie the v ed ray ti Te, 4 $ . Therefo 16 O& Noa.690/2016 before this Tribunal to vacate the stay granted on 13.10.2016 and digmiss the above OA as devoid of merits with exemplary costs. 4.4 On 15.03.2017, respondent No.3 has fled his reply ta the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the respondent No.2 and submis that the Respondent No.1 itself, based on the re commendation of the Respondent No.2 had granted UGC Pay Scales to Dr. Dashrath for the 4° and 5® Central Pay Commissions vide its letter No ENo A-33028/37/02-MT dated 06.08.1999. When the Applicant Dr. Dashrath had. enjoyed UGC Pay Seale for the 4° and s8 opCs, he should have automatically continu ed in the same for the 6" CPC also. The guestion of an employee 'oscillating' hetween UGC Pay Seale and Central Government Pay Sealé in different Pay Commissions does not arise, Howe: ve x, the Ministry of Shipping in its letier no.A-L1O14/1/20 o-MT date sd 14.08.2009 incorrectly fixed the applicant in Pay Band 3 of Rs. 15 600-
29,100/- with Grade Pay of Rs,7,500/- under the 6" CPC. This was Central Government Pay Seale corresponding te S21: Rs.12,000- 375-16,500/- of the S° CPC. The Applicant's request for reconsideration of the Ministry of Shipping's order dated 14.05.2009 was rejected by the Ministry's letter No.A-
LPOLA/L2009-MT dated 05.11.2008. But when ihe Applicant Ve OA No. 68/2016 represented again on 10.11.2009, the Ministry of Shipping vide its letter no. A-LPOIA/L/2000-MT dated 27.11.2000 to the Vice Chancellor reversed iis sland and delegated the decision making to i te fompard here me Aekas Riaer etl one @berve for NECeSSarE ye as 2
455. farther submitted that the above letter is silent about the fact that the 1° Respondent had rejected the same request of the Applicant just 22 days earlier (on 09.11 2011). The Ministry of Shipping should have either granted the applicant the UGC Pay Scale (which was the dekt thing to do) or refterated the stand taken by it earlier on 14.05.2000 and 05.11.2009 and issued a apeaking order as to why the previous fixation under the UOC Pay Seales during the 4" and 3° CPC was a mistake, Instead, within 22 days of its previous letter dated 05.11.2009 rejecting his request, the Ministry of Shipping delegated the de ronns for reasons best known fo & even though the Applicant was a oh eS OA No é90/2016 oy 'deemed deputationist' under Section 490) of the IMU Act, 2008. 4.6. Since the Executive Council of IMU resolved on 24.12. 2000 vide Agenda Item No. BC-03-28 to grant UGC Pay Scales fo all IMU faculty, In the light of the Ministry's ~27.1L2009, the then Registrar, IMU vide Office Order No IMU/REG/0075/2010 dated 13.10.2010 applied this Executive .
Council decision to the Applicant also, and granted him UGC Pay Seale under 6° CPC with effect from 01.01.2006. After having referred the matter to IMU for a decision, tha I* Respondent is opped from stating at this late stage (afer nearly 7 years, and after the icant had retired) that IMU should not have granted him LGC Pay Seale. The fact that the then Registrar, IMU did nat mark a copy of his letter to the Ministry of Shipping does not detract trom the fact that (2) the decision was intrinsically correct because he had enjoyed UGC Pay Seale during the 4" and 5" CPC, and €} the decision was taken pursuant to the direction dated 27.11.2009 of the Ministry of Shipping. Further, as the Applicant tis ag entitled to UGC Pay Seale, he was eligible to be re-designated Z "Associate Prates with effect fram G141 2006 In the scale Rs.37,400-67 ,Q00/- with AGP of Rs.9.006/- as per para 20a}Uix} of MHRD letter dated 31.12.2008 as per the 6° CPC norms.
1S OA No G8t The respondent No.3 submis that after granting UOC Pay Seales to DeDashrath during the 4" CPC and 55 CPC and leaving it to IMU to grant him UGC Pay Seale during the 6" CPC, the Resgondent No.! is estopped from reversing 3 its stand at this point of time and ordering recovery from the applicant for "the excess vay drawn from 01.01.2006 to 20.11.2015. Moreover, the Applicant cannot be designated as s "Lecturer (Mathermatics)"
when he was already Lecturer (Selection Grade) on 02.10.) 1997, ane was entitled to be re-designated as "Associate Professor" with fect from O1.01.2006. Thus, order no ST-I4011/8/2008-MT dated 15.09.2016 issued by the respondent No.1 in respect of the Applicant is erroneous and needs to be cancelled, The admission by the Respondent No.j in para 4.1 of the impugned order that "Tir, Dashrath was never given MU ACP | in his entire . career" 18 indirect proof that he was not governed by Central Government Pay Scales as otherwise, over a 3] years long carecy, he should have got multiple financial upgradations sunder MACP. Instead, his carser progression - Lecturer, Lecturer (Senior Seale), Lecturer (Selection Grade}, Associate Pr ofessor was clearly governed by LUG Pay Scales.29 DA No.69U/2016
4.8. Respondent No.3 further submits that the Respondent No.2 has chosen to remain silent about TSOPTS OLMLE No. ant Matas FEN Ly BP Ose ae" Beaded Supreme Court judgment dated 18.12.2014 In "See of Prosied and others Vs. Rafig Masih jwhite washer) and others" in CA Nod 1327 of 2014 ete which is squarely applicable to the case of the Applicant. Since Dr Dashrath retired on superannuation on SO.U1.2015, and since be enjoyed the benefit of "higher emoluments" from O11 2006 to 30.11.2015 ie. for nearly 16 years), even iis pay had been wrongly fixed, no recovery can be effected by virtue or sub-paras (i) and GID of Para 4 of DOPT's O.M. dated 02.03.2016. But in this case, the Applicant's pay had been rightly Axed by the Ministry itself or based on its direction and so the question of recovery does not arise. The respondent No.2 was silent in this matter which is an implicit admission of this legal and factual position.
4.9, Respondent further submits that the Ministry of Shippin mig eS letter No. ST-14011/8/2008-NT dated 15.07.2016 can only have prospective effect whereas the Applicant Dr. Dashrath had retired on superannuation on 30.11.2015 more than & months earlier. The contentions af the Respandent No.2 in para 6 that 'recovery can be al GA No 68020165 ordered from the Applicant without grant of reasons sble opportunity' and that the Applicant has indulged in suppression of fact and has misrepresented the foc vis' are untenable. It is the as ry mS ~ *e gy ae S&S TT Ye ares cee ik meth Respandant No who has failed to diaclose that Oe Das! AO WAS granted UGC Pay Seales lor the ath and Sth CPC by the Respondent No.1 based on the recommendation of the Respondent Nod. The contention of the respondent No.2 in para / that "Oe Dashrath was not eligible for MACP in his entite career AS per riles" is self-contradictory because if Dr. Dashrath were yeally governed by Central Government Pay Seales then he would have bean automatically eligible for MACP as per DOPT norms. NeDashrath did not get the benefit of MACPS because he was gavemed by UGC Pay Soules. With regard to the contention of the respondent . No.2 in para § of his iscellaneous Petition, it Is gue that DrDashrath was a 'deemed deputationist' to [MU under Section 49 Ci) of the IMU Act 2008 but it is not trae thal "the post on which he is drawing his pension currently is a category $90 pest Le. an IMU post in the LIGC Seale PR-4 Rs, 37 800-67 000 with GLP. of Rs.9,000/- pam. All posts in EMU are IML posts, and same of these posts are manned by 'deemed deputationists' who staod transferred to TMU as per Section 4 49 of the IMU Act, and QA Ns 60/2010 he ie whose pay, perks and other service conditions are protected until their retirement under Section 490) of the wail! Act. Dr Dashrath was a 'deemed deputationist' to whom UGC Pay » Seale had been : a, APA Sey oe Be given eat from 4" CPC. Since the Applicant was covered by UGC Pay seales, his career followed the progression - Lecturer, Lecturer (Senior Seale), Lecturer ( Selection Grade), Associate Professor. The contentions af the Respondent No.2 in paras 9, 10 and [1 are completely erroneous and selfdefeating because the Pay Scales mentioned therein are UGC Pay Seales and sot Central Government Pay Seales. The Pay Seale Rs.3,000-100-3,500-125-3,000/- was the UGC Pay Scale for Lecturer (Senior Seale) under the 4th CPC whereas the scale of Be.12,000-400-18,300/- was the UGC Pay Seale for Lecturer (Selection, Grade} under the 3? CPC. The nearest Central Government Pay Scale in si CPC was S2i: Bs.12,000-375- 16,500/-. It is submitted that the ive of the increment (Rs.420/ vs. Rs.375/-) ag well as the maximum of the scale (Rs. 18 300% vs. Rs. 16,500/-) were different between the UGC Pay Scale and the Central Goverment Pay Scale ta s® pc. Thos, it is clear that what was granted to the Applicant by the Minisiry of Shipping's letter dated O6.08.1999 was UGC Pay Scale and not Central 23 OA No. GSO 2018 Government Pay Seale. Furthes, it was only with regard to 'other academic faculty members' of TS. Chanakya that the Minist jetier dated O6.0S8.1999 slate Xe yovetenees eh :< Bios Sy eee a Ser gpy ek erat i Pte DOSS Ee Pe FOOUYE UES aPe 37) YEE AVES ONO.
qualifications: not Dr. Dashrath.
4,10. Respondent No.3 further submits that the contentions of the respondent No.2 are erroneous and misleading. When the Apolicant Dr Dashrath had enjoyed UGC Pay Seale for the 4° and s® CPCs, he should have automatically continued in the same for abt the 6 CPC also. Respondent No.) should have either granted the Applicant the UGC Pay Scale (which was the right thing to de} or reiterated the stand taken by ft earlier on 14.05.2009 and 05.11.2009 and issued s speaking order as to why the previo Fosation under the UGC Pay Scaes oh uring the 4% and 58 CBC was a mistake and the latest fixation under the 6° CPC was the correct ane. Instead, within 22 days of its previous letter dated OS. 11.2009 rejecting his request, the Ministry of Shipping deleg rated. the decision making in this regard to IMU for reasons best known to t. After having referred the matter to IMU for a decision, the Ministry of Shipping is estopped from stating at this stage (after nearly 7 years and nearly 10 months after the Applicant had 3d OA No 6990/2016 retired) that IMU should not have granted him UGC Pay Seale mm 2010.
4.41, Te is further submitted that Dr Dashrath had become a Lecturer (Selection Grade} as early as on 02.01.1997 fsell. Para 2(a) Gx) of MHRD letter nad-32/2006-LLIVOIC) dated "Incumbent Readers and Lecturers (Selection Grade) who have compleied 3 years in the current pay seale of Rsi2.0 00-18, 300 ~ on OL.01. 2008 shall be Pe laced in Pav Band of Hs. ae 200-67, 0006 with AGP of Rs 2 QGU. and shall be re-designated as Associate Pr fessor .
Dr Dashrath had completed nearly 9 years as Lecturer nm (Selection Grade) as on 01.01.2008, and was therefore entitled to be re-desionaied as 'Associate Professor' with effect from 01.01.2006 as per 6 CPC norms.
5. We have heard both the learned counsels for the parties at length and perused ths sloadin ngs and documents Hled on record.
6. We find that the applicant had retired on superannuation on 30.11.2015. Afler his retirement, the respondents vide letter dated 15.09.2016 refixed his pay scale by revising if downwards from Pay Band TV Rs.37,400-67 000/ with Academic Grade Pay of Rs.9000/+ to Pay Band Ul, Rs.15,400-39,100% with Grads Pay of Rs.7,600/-
with retrospective effect fom 07.01.2006 till the date of 20 OA No.680/2016 SUPCrann uation on 6.1. We find that the Career Advancement Scheme for Teachers as 'scommended by the Ministry of Human Resource Development MUERD) dated 31.12.2008 directed the Seoretary, UGC for implementation of this scheme wet. 01.01.2006 to those readers and lecturers (Selection Grade) who have completed three years im the pay scale of Rs.12,000-18,300/- on 01.01.2006 are to be placed In Pay Bard-4 Rs.o74 7,000/- with AGP of Rs.9,000/- and re- designated as Associate Professor.
62. The applicant made a representation fo the Captain Superintendent, Training Ship Chanakya to grant him the revised corresponding LGC pay scale as per MNIRD notification referred te above, HIS representation was forwarded by the Director General af Shipping vide its letter dated 18 3.2 009 ta the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Shipping to grant him revised 6.3. owas submitted that the above recommendation of the Director General of Shipping was not acted upon and the applicant came to be te granted the Central Government Pay Seale in Pay Band 1;
Bes. 15,600-39,100/- with Grade Pay Rs, 7,400 wef Ql OL.2006 vide letter dated 14.05.2009. Therefore, the applicant made second Mo 26 GA No 6906/2016 representation dated 03.07.2009 which was forwarded by the Director General of Shipping side his letter dated 18/19" August 2009 CAnnexsure A-S8} to the Ministry of Shipping. These recommendations went fumed down by the Min vide ther letter dated OS8.11.2009 (Annexure A-10). It was specifially mentioned in the above letter dated 05.11.2009 thai th proposal to grant UGC pay scales to the applicant was reconsidered, however, it could not be acceded to. If was further mentioned that the UGC scale of pay can be considered far facuthy members of IMU provided IMU adopt UGC scales and finalize its service conditions and method af recruitment as soplicable to the LIGC Teachers 6.4. On receipt of above letter, the applicant refiised the pay Scale of PB-3 (Rs. 15,600-39,100/-) with Grade Pay of Rs.7,400/- and trade ane more representation on 10.11.2009 on the ground that he had already been granted the UGC pay seale with effect from UROL L989 notionally and from 02.01.1907 actually that too afler approval by the Secretary, Ministry of Shipping with due approval of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure. The said letter dated 06.08.1999 CAnnexure A-3) reads as under :
"Sudjyect: impleme sation of UGC _ Beales of pay for ihe Lecturer of ES. t er IA, Avas Asonde: "
we
--
Pom directed fa re Sie Letter No PR-LHIMGS dated ¥ .
% hei ty ay 42 4 6 tat a 4 fea aD rae] a oes a wa $a "ee bes iad et a * "es ae es ao) a psi een at thes Pe ioe <4 Paar Coad acs co td tid es Na oe nae pot foe . sf " iy eo S Py ae : won "ee vay te ee & oes ey ol fila od Pa nee & e Bases Bees fn 7 ret om os be poe The a 3A os whey s ae at ape Sige: coed oP, aes . , hes sod he oS ee = Pes id wt SG ee ee i
- Se i *e3 wed wane, ¢ ot o et oes eon me oa & "ee ee S a a "Ae es os pes 2 ran a the hae' 7. baie
- i S . 2 ¢ 8 & ay Lo Ca Fae Fr % os oa oe or Teal ' ae % $5 oe Sot ts et ¢ to om ro os: pred 3 Bo ee SE ae x Rs i eet ioe ay er, oy gt oe af es cH ~ eo heck % Fd 4 baer ee PO Biny * G 4 Atat a .
Ch Sy ae oe ply +t FL eas as fet em Sind we be a 's on.
t Le F "3 ay Asin, ye Pe 'heed x, a aoe a ~) 'i eo 6 «wa eo et fs Be A e ; 4 te : pt ea fol % oft EA 4 = : os ie Bs, S 4 or! iy, fot 4 Sey S we aia week et es es le iter d " "4 " ered, fanct Cn Ok .
es Z a S, . Fi eee g 7 Eee oC Py a oe % ipot cae : :
es n Bs oe) ta a ped Tad 4 ea bs] z ee Brey gent oF o% ~
3 ba ra sites XS ad . £3 i pos fay cea Pays oe ELE rae pas tes Sane: eared Taal 3 R Be y as ' a i fe e = y & em Ak eat wd eA 4 fy Ps e A eo ges eA ta rey ; ad S35 vee ws if eR ; thes ; 4 me : § es ee eS whe ay z ed a re " to hie Sheed at pee ct ee, oy "<4 ™y * eet se ed, * pes "1 of Pee op, -- boxe} . oS fos 43 ead ae * eg ba Ro ; gene ae wy chook aon oped gene Pas % has : Be HS aoe wet "ant a 43 oc ns aS as aa a BS Ss Po mt fy be) 3 ae ee ft ee oe & bog Pow ' 4 sb steel Fr pa oy Eas : 2 Reo oT time Be C3 pao tad pans B Ge SS ' oe we bat Fae x3 oa 7 % 2 rae oon bed Peed ns is Se eRe, % 7 bats oe fev a ae o ee $a a OH ty ie See" "te os, ' "
vme EG te mts: ig a od .
Ms es 4 ® ace! pak a " C4 uS fn Pi bad a S aa az wht: ay on on heed Ba ry o tna mm we es ey @ as ee o, n stad a. ~ "he deca Fh:
oe we Pie pes pect 3 me tie yal eet n dood ee a aan ' i nee, , Ms "
Toe ee Oe oh ; Pa ey fen. on f ; in Mes: r. et pep boss a OY Re ke ow oP i a i ees tha a Se eh, BS Send oe rnd, cree ee "Cy "ta Be ee te tee tu4 ond ye & [65 pe fy, feo tes 3 ood ce 5 w os De ie fo Re trees fees ae a A bs A CE ia A aood ie ais ad va Bat Ste fet ee aie ¥ tg "beh "Pa oF La pe os eet oa pa a, £3 aa Ms park tal . am * peed ei ee: <yet we oad red * "PE also.
Ut c the 6 2 sue for € i * yeonty wally si) ma + sions vide letter x st © x Rerniin { | Pay f a enire a and SC therefore, he should have auto 28 OA No, G90/2016 The question of an employee getting UGC Pay Seals and Central Government Pay Scale in different Pay Commissions does not arise, ft was submitted that the respondent No.1 vide letter dated 14.05.2009 incorrectly fixed the pay of the applicant in Pay Rand-3. 6.6. owas submitted that since the respondent No.1 vide their letter dated 27.11.2009 kept s © about the rejection of the applicant in their letter dated 05.11.2011, the respondent No.1 should have either granted the UGC pay scales.to the applicant or reiterated the stand taken by them in their letter dated 14.05.2009 and O4.11.2609 and issued a speaking order as to why the previous fixation under the UGC Pay Seales during the 4° and 5° CPC wag not granted. Instead the respondent No.t vide their letter dated 27.11.2009 left it to the respondent No.3,
- It was submitted that since the Executive Council of IMU"
resolved on 24.12.2009 vide Agenda Item No.EC-03-28 to grant UGC Pay Scales to all IMU faculty, in the light of the Ministry's * direction dated 27.11.2009, the then Registrar, IMU vide Office Order dated 13.10.2010 applied this Executive Council decision to the Applicant also, and granted him UOC Pay Seale under 6" CPC with effect from 01.01.2006. It was submitted that after haying referred the matter to IMU for a decision, the respandent No.1 is bo US OA No.boo201d estopped from stating at this late stage afier nearly seven years, and after the applicant had retired, that IMU should not have granted him UOC Pay Seale.
OS. [owas submitted that the feet ther he then Registra, IMU not mark a copy of his letter to the Ministry of Shipping dees not detract from the fact that the decision was intrinsically correct because he had enjoyed UGC Pay Scale during the 4" and S* CPC and the decision to grani him pay scale in Pay Band-4 was taken pursuant fo the direction dated 27.11.2009 of the Ministry of Shipping.
6.9. We find that in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Sie ul State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (¥ hite Hasher} reported In 2014) 8 SOC 883, in para 12 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summerized the following situations wherein recoveries from the employees would be impermissible in law:
ft, im Beco covery from employees belonging é ie Class-Hf and Class IY service for Group 'Cand Gren? (D' service).
nant refired om POVEES, OF employees Who ogre due fo sean of the order of rece, Very 'a z
i) Recovery from emplovees, when the excess payment hay bees aide Jor @ period Pi excess af Ive yevars. before the order af recovery ffi Recovery in cases where on employ we fas wrongfully been ® Pa fet aired fa required ta discherge duties of a Aleher past and has B yy iy my aeccondinety: even though Ae should have rivhifidls: been neg a hoe ie OA Ne.b802016 work aguins an gyerior past, (vw) in any case, where the Court arrive sat the conclusion, ike recovery Pinade fram the employes, would be iuguiters or i rsh or ar hie on td Suan an VERE, Gow oul tee ounvels i vemplover'y right fo recover by Clause (0) and (10) of the above order. Learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of High Court of Punjak and Haryana and others Vs. dagdev Singh, (2016) 14 SCC 267 and states Hon'ble Apex court has permitted recovery where the officer has submitted undertaking. We are not in agreement with this argument. In the case of Jagdew Singh (supra), the cancemed officer had flienished undertaking while opting for revised pay svale that he would reflmd the excess amount paid and --
thus, was bound by undertaking. In the present case, no such undertaking has been brought on record and the applicant denies having submitted the same. Therefore, Jagder Singh's case (supra) is tiot applicable. | 7, Tn wiew of the facts, we are of the view that the recovery from the applicant is net permissible in view of the above direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Regarding grant of UGC scales in Pay Band-4, we are af the view that since the respondent No.l has left the decision to be taken by the respondent No.3 and the respondent No.3 hace:
yaad OA Ne ooaolg in its diseretion decided ta grant LGC pay scales to the applicant, the respondent No.1 is new estopped irom changing its stand after the oe applicant has already retired from service. Moreover, the respondent sm Ave + eo PIE Resgtae SA KS anntlacesd ent Jasiew No.1 has elready granted the UGC Scales to the applicant vide lette:
dated 06.08.1999, In view of the above peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned order dated 15.09.2016 ta refix the salary of the applicant is quashed. However, we make it tet clear that this should not be treated as the precedence. The OA 3 ob allowed. There shall be no order as ta casts.
"(Shri Kyshmay™ (Harviider Kaur Oberoi) _ Member (A) Member (J) kae*