DDA Vs. B.B.S. YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner/DDA under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 14.08.2013 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'CAT') in Original Application (in short 'OA') No. 3848/2013 preferred by the respondent.

(2.) IN OA No. 3548/2012 preferred by the respondent, he sought the following reliefs:

(3.) ASSAILING the legality and correctness of the impugned order dated 14.08.2013, Mr. Arun Birbal, the learned counsel for the petitioner/DDA vehemently contended that in the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has followed the decision of its Larger Bench in the case of J.S. Kharat (supra), but the view taken by the Larger Bench of the learned Tribunal in the said case was not approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in their decision reported as Union of India v. R.K. Chopra, : (2010) 2 SCC 763. The learned counsel thus submits that in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.K. Chopra's (supra) case, the respondent is not entitled to the grant of relief for enhancement of subsistence allowance w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The learned counsel submits that the learned Tribunal also did not appreciate the fact that the Hon'ble Lt. Governor in its order dated 20.07.2012 had directed that the period of absence of the respondent from duty upto the date reinstatement will not be treated as spent on duty and this period was ordered to be regulated as provided under FR 54 (4), subject to the conditions laid down under FR 54(5), (6), (7) and (8) and therefore, in the light of the said direction, the respondent was clearly not entitled to the benefit of revision of pay in the subsistence allowance. The learned counsel also argued that pursuant to the order dated 20.07.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Lt. Governor, a fresh disciplinary proceeding against the respondent was contemplated but no fresh chargesheet was issued to the respondent in view of the meeting held at Raj Niwas on 11.04.2013 between the officials of the DDA with the delegation of the Joint Action Committee of DDA Trade Unions and Engineers and as an outcome of the deliberation which took place between them, the Hon'ble Lt. Governor directed that no fresh chargesheet need be issued to the respondent in the matter and the period for which the respondent remained absent on account of dismissal/removal, action may be taken as per rules on the principle of "no work, no pay" laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold in the same breath as he has already taken advantage of the said direction passed by the Hon'ble Lt. Governor and yet he is challenging another part of the same order. Based on these submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner strongly urges for setting aside of the order passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 3848/2013.