UNION OF INDIA Vs. M L MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition the Union of India impugns the order dated 13. 12. 2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New delhi (for short `the Tribunal') in OA No. 3160/2003 whereby the respondent's original application has been allowed and the office order dated 9. 8. 2001 read with revised letter dated 28. 8. 2002 and the revised pension payment order (whereby the respondent's pension had been reduced and consequent recovery ordered) have been quashed. While passing the impugned order the Tribunal relied on its decision in OA No. 2388/2001 dated 1. 5. 2002 in S. V. Nagarajan vs. UOI and Anr. , wherein a similar point had been raised, namely, whether the upgradation of one post of Advisor (Cost) to the post of Additional Chief advisor (ACA) was a mere upgradation not involving a restructuring of cadre and assumption of higher responsibilities and, therefore, falling under para 4 (a)of the OM dated 30. 6. 1999 bearing No. 6/1/98-ICI issued by the Department of expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, or, whether it falls under para 4 (b) of the said OM, inasmuch as, the upgraded post of ACA tantamounted to restructuring of the existing cadre and carried with it higher responsibilities and, therefore, entailed a process of selection from amonst the eligible candidates. The said issue had a bearing on question whether the benefit of the upgraded post could be given retrospectively with effect from 1. 1. 1996, the date from which the 5th Central Pay Commission Report has made applicable, or whether the said post of ACA could be filled only prospectively.

(2.) THE Tribunal had in its decision rendered in OA No. 2388/2001 concluded that the upgraded post of ACA had to be filled under para 4 (a) of the OM dated 30. 6. 1999 and had accordingly allowed the said OA filed by Shri Nagarajan granting him retrospective upgradation to the post of ACA with effect from 1. 1. 1996 upto 30. 1. 1998, the date of his superannuation. The petitioner had, while considering the case of Shri Nagarajan concluded that the upgradation to the post of ACA granted to the respondent herein Shri M. L. Mehta and to one other officer Shri J. K. Puri was erroneous and had withdrawn the same vide notification dated 9. 8. 2001 which was impugned by the respondent herein before the Tribunal. The petitioner had issued consequential orders revising the pension and ordering recovery to be made against the respondent for the excess pension paid to him on account of the aforesaid upgradation. This was also challenged by the respondent before the Tribunal.

(3.) WE have, by our judgment passed today in WP (C) No. 4460/2002 UOI vs. Shri S. V. Nagarajan filed by the UOI against the decision of the Tribunal in OA no. 2388/2001 allowed the same, and set aside the decision of the Tribunal. We have held that the upgraded post of ACA is not a mere upgradation of post or a change of nomenclature and that it entails restructuring of cadre and assumption of higher responsibilities. Consequently para 4 (b) of the OM dated 30. 6. 1999 is applicable in respect of upgraded post of ACA and the upgradation could not be given retrospective effect from 1. 1. 1996.