Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Raj Bhushan Chauhan vs Govt. Of Nctd on 24 March, 2023
1
Item No. 40/C-4 OA 4174/2015
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 4174/2015
This the 24th day of March, 2023
Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
Raj Bhushan Chauhan, 45 years
S/o Sh. K.S. Chauhan,
Working as LDC in Dept. of Food Supplies &
Consumer Affairs, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
R/o H.No. 8, Punch Mehal Apartments,
Patpatganj, New Delhi
...Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through the Chief Secretary,
New Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi
2. The Secretary (Services),
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
New Secretariat, New Delhi
3. The Asstt. Commissioner (Admn.)
Department of Food Supplies & Consumer Affairs
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, K Block
Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi
...Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. H.A. Khan)
2
Item No. 40/C-4 OA 4174/2015
ORDER (ORAL)
The applicant has filed the present OA seeking the following relief(s):-
"(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may further graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 08.09.2014 (Annex. A/1), declaring to the effect that the whole action of the respondents not granting the due increments to the applicant during the suspension period i.e. due on 1.7.2006, 1.7.2007 and 1.7.2008 is illegal, against the rules and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to re-fix the pay and subsistence allowance of the applicant during suspension period with all consequential benefits including the arrears of difference of subsistence allowances and arrears of difference of pay and allowances with interest.
(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant with the costs of litigation."
2. The applicant is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 08.09.2014, vide which the respondents have rejected the request of the applicant for granting the due increments during the suspension period from 12.05.2006 to 01.05.2008 for the purpose of fixation of pay after revocation of the suspension. Due to this wrong fixation of pay by not taking into account the due increments during the suspension period, the applicant is getting less pay every month, which is arbitrary and illegal.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that similarly situated persons have been granted the benefits of their due increment during the suspension period. However, the same 3 Item No. 40/C-4 OA 4174/2015 was rejected in the case of the applicant. The applicant also made representations dated 21.05.2013 and 04.10.2013 for correct fixation of pay by granting him due increments, but the Respondent No. 3 rejected the request of the applicant without giving any reason and justification.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the contention of the applicant and submitted that his case has already been rejected for grant of increment and that since his period of suspension has not yet been decided, he is not entitled to claim the increments.
5. Heard Mr. Yogesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. H.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondents.
6. It is evident that the applicant was under suspension from 12.05.2006 to 01.05.2008. His request for grant of increment during that period of suspension and thereby fixing his subsistence allowance accordingly, has been rejected. However, no reasons have been given and it is not clear whether the period of suspension has been decided as on duty or otherwise.
7. In a recent judgment in W.P.(C) No. 13811/2019 titled Dr. Mahabir Prasad Yadav vs. Lakshmibai College, 4 Item No. 40/C-4 OA 4174/2015 dated 27.07.2020, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that increments may be granted during suspension period once the period of suspension has been decided whether spent on duty or dies non. The relevant para reads as under:
"37. This, however, should not be interpreted to mean that the Petitioner would be necessarily disentitled to the increments for the period of suspension. Once the disciplinary proceedings pending against the Petitioner, culminate into exoneration, partial or full/ penalty and/or acquittal/conviction in the criminal proceedings, as the case may be, at that stage, depending on the final verdict, the College would decide whether or not the period of suspension is to be counted as period spent on duty or dies non. This would set the stage for deciding the entitlement of the Petitioner to the Increments during suspension period. Thus at this stage, this Court leaves this issue open with the observation that payment of Increments for the suspension period is deferred until a final order is passed by the College under FR 54(B), depending on the outcome of the Disciplinary/Criminal Proceedings."
8. In view of the above mentioned, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant and pass a detailed and reasoned order, taking note of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court quoted above, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. With the above directions, the O.A. stands disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Mohd. Jamshed) Member (A) /jyoti/akshaya/