Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: 04.09.2024 vs The Union Of India And Others on 4 September, 2024
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2024:HHC:8086-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
CWP No. 5831 of 2022
Decided on: 04.09.2024
Raj Kamal Verma ... Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India and others ... Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
___________________________________________________________________
For the petitioner r: Mr. Lalit Kumar Sehgal, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Senior Panel
Counsel for respondent No. 1.
: Mr. Neeraj Verma and Lalita Sharma,
Advocates for respondents No. 2 to 5.
: Mr. Rahul Gathania, Advocate for
respondent No. 6, though ex parte
vide order dated 19.05.2023.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has primarily
prayed for the following reliefs:-
(i) That the impugned orders dated 28.01.2022, whereby
the respondents has rejected the case of the petitioner for
grant of higher pay scale in Pay Band 4 i.e. Rs. 37,400-
67,000/- and withdraw the higher grade pay of Rs.
8700/- granted to the petitioner vide order 24.09.2014 and
not fixing the pay of the petitioner as per Central Civil
Service (Revised Pay) Rules 2016 (7th CPC) w.e.f.
01.01.2016 may kindly be declared
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2024:HHC:8086-DB
as illegal, harsh, arbitrary, unconstitutional, against the
.
public policy and against the principles of natural justice
& service jurisprudence and in violation of the law and
justice.
(ii) That the impugned orders dated 28.01.2022 may
kindly be quashed and set aside AND the petitioner may
kindly beheld entitled for pay scale in Pay Band-4 i.e. Rs.
37,400-67,000/- AND Grade Pay of Rs. 8700, after five
year of serve as Deputy Registrar w.e.f 01.07.2014, with
all consequential benefits.
(iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to re-fix
the pay of the petitioner in Pay Band 4 i.e. Rs. 37,400-
67,000/- with grade pay of Rs. 8700/- w.e.f 01.07.2014
and revised the pay of the petitioner as per Central Civil
Service (Revised Pay) Rules 2016 (7th CPC) w.e.f.
01.01.2016 and to release due and admissible benefits
and arrears to the petitioner, accordingly, alongwith
interest at the earliest.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of Annexure
P-17, dated 28.01.2022, in terms whereof the financial upgradation
granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.07.2014 has been withdrawn on
the ground that the same was not admissible to the petitioner as he
was on deputation and in terms of the Recruitment Rules, the
financial upgradation was permissible for the regular employees of
the Institute only.
3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present
petition are that the petitioner, who was a permanent employee of
the Horticulture Produce Marketing Corporation, was sent on
2024:HHC:8086-DB
deputation to the National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur, in the
.
year 2009. While petitioner was serving in the said institution on
deputation basis, in terms of Annexure P-4, dated 03.03.2014, he
was appointed on deputation basis as a Deputy Registrar in the
National Institute of Technology, Delhi. The petitioner served there
as such on deputation basis till he superannuated on 30.04.2016
from the service. The grievance of the petitioner is that in terms of
impugned order Annexure P-17, dated 28.05.2022, the financial
upgradation, which was awarded to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.07.2014
has been withdrawn by assigning reasons that as the petitioner was
appointed against the post of Deputy Registrar on deputation basis
and as in terms of Recruitment Rules, the financial upgradation was
permissible only in the case of regular employees of the Institute,
therefore, the financial upgradation granted to the petitioner is bad
and not in order.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and
carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended
therewith.
5. In view of the fact that the financial upgradation granted
to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.07.2014 was withdrawn vide impugned
communication only on the ground that as per Recruitment Rules,
the financial upgradation could have been given to a regular
employee and not to someone on deputation basis as was the case of
2024:HHC:8086-DB
the petitioner, this Court is not dwelling any further as far as other
.
pleadings in the petition are concerned.
5. The Recruitment Rules for the post of Deputy Registrar
are on record. They are appended with the petition as Annexure P-7.
A perusal of these Rules demonstrates that the post of Deputy
Registrar is a selection post, which is filled in 75% by way of direct
recruitment and 25% by promotion, failing which, by
deputation/contract and failing in both, by direct recruitment.
6. In the present case, the petitioner has been recruited to
the post of Deputy Registrar by way of deputation. I have carefully
perused the relevant Recruitment Rules and no part thereof creates
any impediment or debars a person who has been appointed by way
of deputation against the post of Deputy Registrar that such an
incumbent is not eligible for any financial upgradation.
7. Therefore, withdrawal of financial upgradation on the
reason that the Recruitment Rules to the post of Deputy Registrar do
not provide for financial upgradation of an incumbent on deputation
basis, is completely perverse and not sustainable in the eyes of law.
8. It may be clarified that because this is the only reason
that has been assigned in the impugned communication for
withdrawal of financial upgradation, therefore, this Court is not
dwelling on other explanations that have been given in the
pleadings.
2024:HHC:8086-DB
9. A five Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
.
Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs The Chief Election
Commissioner, New Delhi and others, (1978) 1 Supreme Court
Cases 405, has been pleased to hold that when a statutory
functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity
must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and it cannot be
supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise.
10. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in Mohinder Singh Gill's case (supra), on this short count,
this petition succeeds. Annexure P-17, dated 28.01.2022, is quashed
and set aside. Consequences to ensue. Other reliefs prayed for in the
writ petition are left open and the petitioner may agitate the same in
some other petition, if so advised. However, it is clarified that if the
grant of financial upgradation was not permissible to the petitioner
under any other provision of law, then, the respondents shall be at
liberty to take a fresh decision in this regard but strictly in
accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any,
also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
Sept. 04, 2024
(narender)
