Delhi High Court
Sh.B.P.Kaushik Vaid (Retd) vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 8 December, 2009
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C.) No.11279/2009
% Date of Decision: 08.12.2009
Sh.B.P.Kaushik Vaid (Retd) .... Petitioner
Through Mr.G.P.Gehlaut, Advocate
Versus
Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr .... Respondents
Through Ms.Rinchen O.Bhutia, Advocate,
Advocate for the respondent No.1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO
the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
The petitioner had claimed grant of non-practicing allowance from
1st January, 1986 which was declined by the Central Administrative
Tribunal by order dated 13th May, 2009 in O.A No.1057/2008 titled
Sh.B.P.Kaushik Vaid (Retd) v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
The petitioner had asserted that he was appointed as Vaid in A&U
Tibbia College, Delhi on 29th July, 1975 and was confirmed on 30th
July, 1978 and he was superannuated on 31st August, 1997. The pay of
the petitioner was fixed in the scale of Rs.2200-4000/- with effect from
1st January, 1986.
The petitioner was given the benefit of NPA from 1st January,
1986, however, a corrigendum dated 27th December, 2000 was issued
that he was entitled for NPA from 4th July, 1991 instead of 1st January,
1986. The petitioner had challenged the same on the ground that
Sh.Shah Nawaj Ali also employed as a Hakim in A&U Tibbia College had
been granted NPA (non practicing allowance) from 1st January, 1986
and, therefore, he is entitled for the same from 1st January, 1986 and
not from 4th July, 1991 in terms of corrigendum issued by the
respondent No.2. The petitioner also challenged issuance of
corrigendum dated 27th December, 2000 granting non performance
allowance from 4th July, 1991 instead of 1st January, 1986 on the
ground that once NPA was granted to him from 1st January, 1986, a
right had accrued to him which could not be withdrawn arbitrarily.
The plea of the petitioner was contested on the ground that
Sh.Shah Nawaj Ali, Hakim was granted NPA from 1st January, 1986
wrongly and show cause notice has been issued to him for recovery of
the amount paid to him wrongly. The respondent also placed reliance
on State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh, 2000 SCC (L&S) 845
holding that the benefit wrongly given to one person cannot be a ground
to claim the same benefit by another employee unless the benefit
granted is in accordance with the rules. The reliance was also placed on
the allegation that the request of A&U Tibbia College Staff Association
about payment of NPA with effect from 1st January, 1986 was declined
and this fact was also communicated to the Staff Association by order
dated 25th September, 1992.
The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to demonstrate
and show that the petitioner is entitled for NPA from 1st January, 1986.
His claim is founded on the fact that Sh.Shah Nawaj Ali, Hakim was
granted NPA from 1st January, 1986 wrongly and recovery proceedings
against him have already been initiated. The Tribunal also noted that
show cause notice is not required as in case of petitioner NPA had not
been paid, whereas in case of Sh.Shah Nawaj Ali the amount of NPA
was paid and, therefore, a show cause notice was given to him and in
case of petitioner it is not required.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to make
out a case that the petitioner has a vested right to claim NPA from 1st
January, 1986 on the basis of order dated 29th June, 2000. No infirmity
has been pointed out by the petitioner in the order dated 4th July, 1991
restricting his NPA from 4th July, 1991 instead of 1st January, 1986.
In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner has not been able
to make out any grounds which will entitle petitioner for interference by
this Court against the order dated 13th May, 2009 of Central
Administrative Tribunal in O.A No.1057/2008, Sh.B.P.Kaushik Vaid
(Retd) v. Govt of NCT of Delhi. The writ petition in the facts and
circumstances is without any merit and it is, therefore, dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
DECEMBER 08, 2009 VIPIN SANGHI, J.
k
