RAJEEV HARIT Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner sought direction for protection of his pay arising from his recruitment in IRS Service. His request was declined by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide impugned order dated 25.01.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to Annexure A-7 dated 01.07.1994, which is the order of protection of pay where the sole ground stated is that before such pay protection is made available, confirmation in the previous appointment is mandatory in view of FR 22B(1).

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, during his arguments has not been able to substantiate the aforesaid plea of rejection but submits that it is FR 22(3) which would apply to the case of the petitioner and it is the subsequent Office Memorandum dated 14.02.2006, would play a role in determining the entitlement of the petitioner. The said Office Memorandum reads as under:

(3.) The matter has been pending for some time and naturally there was no interim order. The Office Memorandum referred to as aforesaid has not been examined as the impugned order just precedes the office order. The petitioner has since been promoted and now occupies his promotional post. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and taking into consideration the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is considered appropriate that the petitioner may make a fresh representation taking into consideration the aforesaid material including the office memorandum dated 14.02.2006 and the respondents will bestow consideration under the same. We may note that the order of rejection does not deal with the aspect of the parity sought by the petitioner qua the case of one Dr. Navaljit Kapoor and the impugned order has brushed aside this aspect on account of failure to produce the factual matrix qua that case. This material would be within the domain of the respondents and, thus, this is also an aspect which ought to be taken into consideration by the respondents while passing a reasoned decision. The needful be done within a period of two months of the representation being made. The impugned order would not thus come in the way of consideration of the fresh representation in terms of the aforesaid.