Bombay High Court
Union Of India Through The ... vs Sushma Hemant Kabir on 29 January, 2021
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
12 & 12.1-WP-ST-93232 & 93389-2020
Pdp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITON
WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 93232 OF 2020
Union of India & Ors. .. Petitioners
Vs.
Smt. Sushma H. Kabir .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 93389 OF 2020
Union of India & Ors. .. Petitioners
Vs.
Bhakti Pandurang Raut & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. T. J. Pandian a/w Mr. T. C. Subramanian for petitioners.
Mr. Rahul Walia for respondents.
CORAM :- DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ &
G. S. KULKARNI, J.
DATE :- JANUARY 29, 2021
PC :
1. Original Application No. 635 of 2013 and Original
Application No. 509 of 2014 have been allowed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai (hereafter
"the Tribunal" for short) by a common judgment and order
dated 30th January, 2020. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents
in such original applications have presented these writ
12 & 12.1-WP-ST-93232 & 93389-2020
petitions in their attempt to have the impugned judgment and
order of the Tribunal set aside.
2. The original applicants, while working as Matron /
Chief Matron, were granted benefits of Modified Assured
Career Progression Scheme (hereafter the MACP Scheme, for
short) in Pay-Band-III with Grade Pay of Rs.6600/- by orders
passed by their employer dated 8th February, 2010 with effect
from their respective dates of eligibility. Several years later,
the orders impugned in the original applications were passed
seeking to recover financial benefits, which had passed on to
the original applicants, without any show-cause notices being
issued. The orders of recovery were under challenge in the
original applications.
3. The Tribunal noted that similar grievances had
been considered by the Principal Bench at Delhi and challenge
to the orders of recovery was upheld. The decision of the
Principal Bench was challenged in the Delhi High Court, which
dismissed the writ petition on 24th August, 2012. A Special
Leave Petition carried to the Supreme Court from the order of
the Delhi High Court, was also dismissed by an order dated 4th
March, 2013.
12 & 12.1-WP-ST-93232 & 93389-2020
4. Much after the aforesaid dismissal of the SLP, the
Railway Board issued Circular dated 14th June, 2018 on the
subject of grant of Grade Pay of Rs.6600/- in Pay-Band-III to
Nursing Personnel, i.e., Staff Nurse/Nursing Sister/Matron/
Chief Matron under the 3rd MACP Scheme. The original
applicants contended before the Tribunal that they were
covered by clause (c) of the Circular dated 14th June, 2018.
Having heard learned advocates for the parties and
considering the fact that the order passed by the Delhi High
Court had not been disturbed by the Supreme Court and that
clause (c) of the Circular dated 14th June, 2018 was applicable
to the original applicants, the Tribunal was of the view that
the orders of recovery were unsustainable in law and that the
original applicants entitled to all consequential benefits based
on the Grade Pay of Rs.6600/- under the 3rd MACP Scheme.
The original applications were, accordingly, disposed of with a
direction upon the respondents therein to grant the benefits
as admissible to the original applicants within ten weeks of
receipt of a certified copy of the order.
5. We have heard Mr. Pandian, learned advocate for
12 & 12.1-WP-ST-93232 & 93389-2020
the petitioners and Mr. Walia, learned advocate for the
respondents. We have ascertained from Mr. Walia that while
majority of the original applicants have retired, a few of them
are still in service.
6. It has not been disputed by Mr. Pandian that the
orders of recovery were issued without complying with
principles of natural justice. Such an action is in the teeth of
the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Shukla s/o
Sh. Sarabjit vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in AIR
1994 SC 2480. Mr. Pandian has further not disputed that the
Circular dated 14th June, 2018 still holds the field, not having
been revoked. That apart, materials on record bear testimony
to the fact that the Railways have implemented orders passed
across the board by various Tribunals in respect of similar
grievances and granted relief of benefits available to similarly
placed employees under the 3rd MACP Scheme. Not only that,
even pension of retired employees has been fixed based on
Rs.6,600/- as last drawn pay. Reliance placed by Mr. Pandian
on the decision in Union of India & Ors. vs. M.V. Mohanan
Nair reported in (2020) 5 SCC 421 is not apt, having regard
to the peculiar facts and circumstances noticed above. We,
12 & 12.1-WP-ST-93232 & 93389-2020
therefore, do not see any reason to deprive the respondents
of similar such benefits as has been extended, particularly
when most of the respondents have, by now, retired from
service and that even their retiral benefits have been held-up
on the ground of pendency of these writ petitions.
7. We, therefore, uphold the judgment and order of
the Tribunal in view of the special facts and circumstances
noted above, and dismiss the writ petitions. There shall be no
order as to costs.
8. The benefits admissible to the respondents may be
released by the petitioners as early as possible.
(G. S. KULKARNI, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
Pravin D.
Pandit
Digitally signed by
Pravin D. Pandit
Date: 2021.01.30
15:33:08 +0530
