Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Deepak Chandra Singh vs M/O Agriculture on 2 September, 2025
1 (OA No. 1031/2018)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Reserved on : 17.07.2025
Pronounced on : 02.09.2025
OA No. 1031/2018
HON'BLE SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA,MEMBER(A)
Deepak Chandra Singh S/o Late Shri Bipin Chandra
Singh age 34 years working as Multi Tasking Staff
(MTS) in Central Sheep Breeding Farm, Post Box No.
10, Hissar resident of C/o Sh. Om Parkash Siwach,
Village and Post Office Juglan, Tehsil and District
Hissar, Haryana-125001.
...Applicant
(By Advocate : Sh. Harpal Singh proxy counsel for
Sh. Rishav Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of
Agriculture, Department of Animal Husbandry,
Dairying and Fisheries Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-
110001.
2. The Director, Central Sheep Breeding Farm, Post
Box No. 10, Hissar-125001.
..............Respondents
(BY ADVOCATE: Sh. A.K. Sharma (Through VC)
along with Sh. Sandeep Dhanda,
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:28:33+05'30'
2 (OA No. 1031/2018)
Administrative Officer, Central
Sheep Breeding Farm, Hisar)
ORDER
Per: SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J):
1. The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief(s):-
(i) That the impugned Order dated 05.07.2018 (Annexure A-1) reverting the applicant from the Group '' post of Telephone Operator carrying Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/-
to the Group 'D' post of Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) carrying Grade Pay of Rs. 1800/ in the pay 5200- 20200 scale of Rs. retrospectively w.e.f. and that 05.06.2009, too the initial date of appointment of applicant on the post of on Telephone Operator compassionate grounds and further ordering the of pay and resultant recovery allowances, be quashed and set-aside, in the interest of justice.
(ii) That it be further declared that once the respondents themselves have failed to notify any recognized Institute imparting PBX Training Course and also failed to inform the applicant about any institute from where applicant could undergone the PBX Training Course, then the applicant reverted for want of such PBX Training cannot be Course.
(iii) That the applicant be held entitled to benefit of DOPT O.Μ. No. 18017/1/2014-Estt (L) dated 25.02.2015 which has been issued upon amendment of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 vide the DOPT Notification No. 13026/1/2002-Est (L) dated the 15/16th January, 2004 consequent to the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (PWD Act, 1995) which came into force from 7thFebruary, 1996. DOPT OM dated 25.02.2015 also notices the case of Kunal Singh v. Union of India, [2003] 4 SCC 524 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:28:33+05'30' 3 (OA No. 1031/2018)
(iv). That it be declared that the an employee cannot be reverted to a post on which he was never appointed and an employee cannot be reverted retrospectively.
(v) That the action of respondents in effecting recovery w.e.f. 05.06.2009 be declared arbitrary and illegal in the light of the fact no fraud or that there is misrepresentation on the part of applicant in drawing Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/- w.e.f. 05.06.2009. Applicant has got what he was entitled he having been actually worked on the post of from Telephone Operator 05.06.2009 till the passing of present impugned order and his pay was fixed rightly pursuant in Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/- upon his compassionate appointment on the post of Telephone Operator.
(vi). That the applicant be held entitled to all consequential benefits and reliefs from due dates, in the interest of justice.
2. The facts as enumerated in the Original Application are that the father of the applicant, namely Sh. Bipin Chandra Singh, died in service in the year 2005 while working with the respondent Department as a Poultry Attendant, CPDO, Bhubaneswar. On denial of appointment on compassionate grounds, the applicant was compelled to file O.A. No. 413 of 2007 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, which was decided on 25.10.2007. In implementation thereof, the applicant was appointed as Telephone Operator at the Central Sheep Breeding Farm, Hisar, in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 + GP Rs.1900/- vide appointment letter dated 15/19.05.2009 (Annexure A-2). The appointment was subject to the conditions that the NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:28:33+05'30' 4 (OA No. 1031/2018) applicant would (i) acquire Matriculation qualification within two years of appointment, and (ii) obtain a PBX Telephone Operator Training Certificate from a recognized institute within one year. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 wrote a letter dated 21.05.2010 to BSNL, Hisar to ascertain whether PBX Training Course was available there, and if not, to identify any Government/Semi-Government Institute providing such training (Annexure A-3).
3. Meanwhile, the Government of India, DoPT, issued O.M. No. F.No.14014/2/2009-Estt(D) dated 03.04.2012, providing that persons appointed as Trainee on compassionate grounds could acquire minimum educational qualification within five years. Despite this, respondent No.1 issued an order dated 17.07.2012 terminating the services of the applicant for not acquiring Matriculation within three years. The applicant challenged the same by filing O.A. No.1174-HR-2012, which was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 24.01.2013, quashing the termination and allowing the applicant a total of five years from appointment to acquire the qualification (Annexure A-4). NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:28:33+05'30' 5 (OA No. 1031/2018)
4. The applicant thereafter submitted several representations dated 22.02.2013, 30.11.2013, 19/21.12.2013, 27.03.2014, and 04.04.2014 (Annexure A-5 colly), requesting exemption from PBX training on the ground that no Government-recognized institute was conducting such training. No response was given by the respondents. The applicant, however, successfully qualified Matriculation (2nd Division) through National Institute of Open Schooling under the Ministry of HRD (Roll No.050058122511) and informed the respondents vide letter dated 02.05.2014, enclosing his certificate dated 10.12.2013 (Annexure A-6). Further, BSNL Hisar confirmed through RTI reply dated 12.05.2014 that it was not providing PBX training (Annexure A-7).
5. Despite these facts, respondent No.2 issued office order dated 12.01.2015, assigning the applicant work relating to Telephone/Fax, maintenance of personal files/service books, and other miscellaneous duties (Annexure A-8). Shockingly, vide order dated 07.09.2015, the applicant was relieved from the post of Telephone Operator and shifted to the post of MTS in GP Rs.1800/- with recovery of alleged excess pay. The applicant challenged the same in O.A. No.060/00866/2015, which was partly NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:28:33+05'30' 6 (OA No. 1031/2018) allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 07.09.2017, setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back for a fresh speaking order after hearing the applicant (Annexure A-9). In Para 9 of the dated 07.09.2017, the Tribunal specifically observed that the Competent Authority had committed a legal error by reverting the applicant from TO to MTS, a post on which he was never appointed, despite the fact that he had continuously served as TO since 2009 without any default in duties and in the absence of any PBX training institute. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.2 issued a Show Cause Notice dated 27/30.12.2017 proposing adjustment of the applicant against MTS post w.e.f. initial appointment and recovery of excess pay (Annexure A-10).
6. Thereafter, vide order dated 22.01.2018, the applicant was asked to perform Diary/Dispatch work (Annexure A-
11). The applicant submitted a reply and requested restoration to TO post as per Tribunal order, besides seeking time extension and submitting medical records of his eye treatment. The Civil Surgeon, Hisar, issued a Disability Certificate dated 27.03.2018, certifying 75% permanent impairment/blindness (Annexure A-13 colly). NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:28:33+05'30' 7 (OA No. 1031/2018)
7. Ultimately, respondent No.2 issued a Speaking Order dated 05.07.2018, stating compliance with Tribunal order dated 07.09.2017, but placing the applicant on the post of MTS in GP Rs.1800/- retrospectively w.e.f. 05.06.2009 (the date of initial appointment as TO), with directions to refund alleged excess pay (Annexure A-1).
8. Thus, the applicant has been illegally and arbitrarily reverted from the Group "C" post of Telephone Operator (GP Rs.1900/-) to the Group "D" post of MTS (GP Rs.1800/-) with retrospective effect from his initial appointment, despite having duly performed duties of TO and without any misrepresentation on his part. This has also been ordered along with recovery of salary already earned, even though the applicant has since become 75% disabled while in service. Hence, this OA.
9. Vide its order dated 30.08.2018, this Tribunal restrained the respondents from effecting any recovery in pursuance of impugned order (Annexure A-1).
10. The respondents contested the claim of the applicant by filing a written statement. It has been stated by the respondents that the applicant Deepak Chandra Singh was appointed as Telephone Operator on 05.06.2009 at NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:28:33+05'30' 8 (OA No. 1031/2018) Central Sheep Breeding Farm, Hisar on compassionate grounds by relaxing two eligibility conditions, namely, passing Matriculation within two years and acquiring PBX Telephone Operator training certificate within one year of appointment.
11. It has been further stated by the respondents that the appointment was subject to fulfillment of these conditions, failing which his services were to be terminated. Since the applicant failed to acquire both qualifications within the stipulated period, his services were terminated w.e.f. 24.07.2012 vide order No.23- 1/2009/PF/1030 dated 24.07.2012.
12. Respondents further submit that the termination order dated 24.07.2012 was challenged by the applicant in OA No.1174/HR/2012 before CAT, Chandigarh. The Hon‟ble Tribunal vide order dated 24.01.2013 quashed the termination and allowed him five years‟ time from the date of appointment to acquire the qualifications, treating him as a "Trainee" in terms of DOPT OM dated 03.04.2012. The applicant acquired Matriculation on 10.12.2013 but did not obtain the PBX certificate, and thus remained ineligible after the expiry of five years i.e. NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:28:33+05'30' 9 (OA No. 1031/2018) on 05.06.2014. On the advice of DOPT and Department of Legal Affairs, the Ministry decided to challenge the CAT order in the High Court.
13. It has been further stated by the respondents that accordingly, they filed CWP No.15148/2014 (Union of India & Ors. vs. Deepak Chandra Singh) before the Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Division Bench, taking into account that the appointment was on compassionate grounds and that the applicant had since acquired Matriculation, dismissed the writ petition on 25.08.2014 but left open the question of whether an unqualified candidate can as a matter of right continue on a post. A copy of the order is annexed as Annexure R-1.
14. Respondents further submit that the Ministry of Law.
DOPT advised shifting the applicant to the post of MTS, which matched his qualification, and the Ministry of Law concurred while clarifying that such shifting was an administrative function of the Department. It was also considered whether recovery should be made for the period during which the applicant did not qualify, but since he had been paid regular pay and allowances of NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:28:33+05'30' 10 (OA No. 1031/2018) Telephone Operator in PB-1 Rs.5200-20200 + GP Rs.1900 w.e.f. 05.06.2009, and not the lower "trainee" scale, no recovery was held admissible.
15. It has been stated by the respondents that in accordance with this advice and with approval of the competent authority, it was decided to relieve the applicant from the post of Telephone Operator and adjust him as MTS. Consequently, CSBF Hisar issued order No.32-1/2014/Estt./1383 dated 07.09.2015 shifting him to the post of MTS w.e.f. 05.06.2009 in PB- 1 Rs.5200-20200 + GP Rs.1800 instead of Rs.4440- 7440. A copy of this order is annexed as Annexure R-2. The applicant challenged this reversion by filing OA No.060/00866/2015 before CAT, Chandigarh.
16. It has been further averred that the Hon‟ble Tribunal vide judgment dated 07.09.2017 partly allowed the OA and remitted the matter back to the competent authority for fresh decision after granting the applicant an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking and reasoned order. In compliance, respondent no. 2 passed speaking order No.32-3/2015/Estt./861 dated 05.07.2018 after hearing the applicant. It was held that NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:28:33+05'30' 11 (OA No. 1031/2018) the applicant was not eligible on the date of his appointment, nor did he acquire the required qualifications even after the relaxations of two years and five years granted by the Tribunal, and that he continued to remain ineligible for the post of Telephone Operator. Hence, he could not be retained on the post under the Recruitment Rules.
17. No rejoinder has been filed by the applicant.
18. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have carefully gone through the pleadings on record.
19. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was appointed on compassionate grounds as Telephone Operator (Group „C‟, GP Rs. 1900/-) vide order dated 15/19.05.2009, subject only to the condition of passing Matriculation within two years. The period was extended to five years by this Hon‟ble Tribunal vide order dated 24.01.2013, and the applicant duly cleared Matriculation in 2013.
20. It is further argued that at the time of appointment, the prescribed qualification was Matriculation, which the applicant possessed. The subsequent change to 10+2, introduced on the recommendations of the 6th CPC, NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:28:33+05'30' 12 (OA No. 1031/2018) cannot be retrospectively applied to unsettle his appointment.
21. Learned counsel submits that the second condition of acquiring PBX Training Certificate could not be fulfilled for the simple reason that no such course was available in any recognized institute. Even BSNL Hisar, in its RTI reply dated 12.05.2014, confirmed the non-availability of such training. Despite repeated requests, the respondents never intimated any institute. The applicant, therefore, cannot be penalized for impossibility of compliance.
22. Learned counsel contends that the applicant has continuously and efficiently discharged the duties of Telephone Operator since 2009. Vide Office Order dated 12.01.2015, the respondents themselves entrusted him with all work relating to Telephone, Broadband, and Fax. His performance has never been faulted.
23. It is next submitted that this Tribunal, in order dated 07.09.2017, had already quashed a similar reversion and directed the respondents to pass a speaking order after considering all relevant aspects. The impugned order has ignored these binding directions and repeated NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:28:33+05'30' 13 (OA No. 1031/2018) the illegality, thereby rendering the action unsustainable.
24. Learned counsel argues that the recovery of difference n Grade Pay (Rs.1900/- to Rs.1800/-) is wholly barred by law. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 11527 of 2014, decided on 18.12.2014, wherein it has been categorically held that recovery from Group „C‟/„D‟ employees after five years is impermissible. The same principle is reiterated in DoPT OM dated 02.03.2016.
25. Counsel further relies upon the Full Bench judgment of the Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Budh Ram & Ors. v. State of Haryana, 2009 (3) SCT 333, which held that no recovery can be made where excess payment arises from a bona fide interpretation of rules and where there is no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the employee. The applicant squarely falls within this ratio.
26. It is also submitted that the action of reversion is in violation of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:28:33+05'30' 14 (OA No. 1031/2018) (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and the DoPT OM dated 25.02.2015. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Kunal Singh v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 524, has held that the protection under Section 47 is mandatory in nature.
27. Lastly, learned counsel argues that even if reversion was permissible, the same could not have been given retrospective effect from 05.06.2009, i.e., the date of initial appointment. At most, it could operate prospectively from the date of the impugned order. The retrospective reversion is patently illegal and unsustainable.
28. The learned counsel for the respondents argues that the Department has complied with the decision of the Hon‟ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh dated 25.8.2014 and of the Hon‟ble Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench dated 24.1.2013. As per advice of DoPT and Ministry of Law, the applicant is not qualified for the post of Telephone Operator and has been shifted to MTS Group „C‟ with approval of competent authority. Question of recovery does not arise as he was never NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:28:33+05'30' 15 (OA No. 1031/2018) placed in the pay band of Rs. 4440-7440 prescribed for trainees.
29. The respondents further argue that the applicant was appointed as Telephone Operator subject to the condition that he would acquire Matriculation by 5.6.2011 and PBX Telephone Operator certificate by 5.6.2010. These conditions were accepted by him. No assurance was given by the department for providing such training. Applicant was responsible to acquire qualifications independently as required in the recruitment rules.
30. The respondents further argue that the applicant has been unable to read and write Hindi or English and had vision problems since his appointment on 5.6.2009. The disability certificate issued by Civil Surgeon, Hisar is to be further examined by the Medical Board of PGIMS, Rohtak/Chandigarh to ascertain the date of disability.
31. From the facts and rival contentions, it emerges that the applicant was appointed as Telephone Operator on compassionate grounds in 2009 and continuously discharged the duties of that post. His appointment was conditional upon acquiring (i) matriculation and (ii) a NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:28:33+05'30' 16 (OA No. 1031/2018) PBX training certificate. While he duly obtained the matriculation qualification within the extended period granted by this Tribunal‟s earlier order, the PBX training could not be obtained because no recognized institute imparting such training existed, as confirmed by BSNL under RTI. The applicant, therefore, cannot be faulted for non-fulfillment of an impossible condition.
32. The Tribunal in its earlier order dated 07.09.2017 had already held that reversion to the post of MTS, a post on which the applicant was never appointed, was legally unsustainable. Despite this, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 05.07.2018 reverting the applicant retrospectively from 05.06.2009, which is wholly impermissible in law. An employee cannot be reverted retrospectively nor fastened with recovery for salary earned on a post whose duties were in fact discharged.
33. The action of recovery is further barred by the law declared in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2014) 8 SCC 883, and the Full Bench judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Budh Ram (2009), which prohibit recovery from Group „C‟ and „D‟ employees NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:28:33+05'30' 17 (OA No. 1031/2018) where there is no misrepresentation or fraud. The applicant, having worked on the higher post under orders of the respondents themselves, cannot be saddled with liability of refund.
34. Additionally, once the applicant was certified to be suffering from 75% permanent disability, the protection of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 squarely applies. In Kunal Singh v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 524, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that no employee acquiring disability during service can be reduced in rank or terminated. The DoPT O.M. dated 25.02.2015 further reinforces this protection.
35. Accordingly, the Original Application deserves to be allowed. The impugned order dated 05.07.2018 (Annexure A-1) is quashed and set aside. The applicant shall be treated as continuing on the post of Telephone Operator with all consequential benefits. No recovery shall be made from him. The respondents are directed to extend him the benefit of disability protection under Section 47 of the PWD Act and DoPT instructions. Such NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:28:33+05'30' 18 (OA No. 1031/2018) exercise be carried out within eight weeks of date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
36. However, there shall be no order so as to costs.
(ANJALI BHAWRA) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
Member (A) Member (J)
ND*
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:28:33+05'30'