Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi,Member(A) The applicant has filed the OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:

"to call for the records relating to the Circular bearing F.No.4(13)/2008-Estt.IV dt.11.06.2012 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to restore the system of Merit Promotion from one grade to the next higher grade irrespective of occurrence of vacancies in the higher grade or grant of Advance increment(s) in the same grade on the basis of assessment of performance etc provided in Rule 6.1 of the ICAR Technical Service Rules and pass such further or other order or orders that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and render justice."

10. As regards the DoP&T's O.M. dated 6.12.2012, ibid, relying on which the applicant also questions the validity and legality of the circulars dated 11.6.2012 and 22.4.2013, ibid, we have found that the said DoP&T's O.M. dated 6.12.2012 relates to the Stenographers in Subordinate Offices of the Central Government, while the ICAR is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, and the Governing Body of the Society is the authority which is competent to frame and amend the Rules relating to grant of advance increments to the personnel in the Technical Service of ICAR. When the Rules governing the promotions and grant of advance increments to the personnel in the Technical Service of the ICAR, and the Rules governing the promotions and the decisions regarding the grant of advance increments to the Stenographers in Subordinate Offices of the Central Government are distinctly different, the applicant or, for that matter, other personnel in the Technical Service of the ICAR, cannot claim as a matter of right to be granted advance increments as admissible to the Stenographers of Subordinate Offices of the Central Government. Therefore, the DoP&T's O.M. dated 6.12.2012, ibid, is of no help to the case of the applicant'

11.2 Admittedly, the applicant was granted three advance increments with effect from 1.1.2007 under the provisions of the Technical Service Rules, vide office order dated 17.12.2008 (Annexure A/5). The excess amount paid to the applicant and other similarly placed personnel in the Technical Service of ICAR was not on account of any misrepresentation made by them, nor was it on account of any fraud committed by them. The excess amount became recoverable from them only in terms of the circulars dated 11.6.2012 and 22.4.2013, ibid, by which Rule 6(1) and paragraph 10 of Appendix III for Categories I, II and III under Rule 6.13 of the Technical Service Rules were amended with effect from 1.1.2006. Therefore, as per the ruling given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 12 (iii) of the judgment in State of Punjab & others, etc. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), etc. (supra), the recovery of the excess amount from the applicant and other similarly placed personnel in the Technical Service of ICAR, as ordered by the respondents in June 2012 and April 2013, is impermissible in law.

12. In the light of our above discussions, while upholding all other provisions of the circulars dated 11.6.2012 and 22.4.2013 (Annexure A/1 and Annexure A/2), we quash the decision of the respondents to recover the excess amount from the applicant and other similarly placed personnel in the Technical Service of the ICAR, as contained in the said circulars. Consequently, the respondents are directed not to recover the said excess amount from the applicant and other similarly placed personnel in the Technical Service of the ICAR. '