UNION OF INDIA Vs. SHER CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sher Chand, respondent No.1, was appointed as Valveman with effect from 13.1.1977 through the Employment Exchange. He was born on 5.12.1952 and, thus, would have retired on attaining the age of 60 years i.e. about a year and a half ago. Respondent No.1 was, however, engaged for casual service from 13.1.1977 to 4.1.1987 for a period of 10 years, but the same was regularised by an order dated 21.11.1997, referring to an earlier instruction dated 17.3.1986 read with the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, stating that "the casual service rendered by the individuals are to be regularized with consequential reliefs". The order was applicable to both Sher Chand and another employee Shri Karamjit Singh. The Garrison Engineer consequently passed an order on 8.12.1997. The controversy pertains both to the aforesaid order as well as the Assured Career Progression (for short 'ACP') Scheme, which is stated to have been introduced in the year 1999. Respondent No.1 was granted the first upgradation under the ACP Scheme, which is admissible on completion of at least 12 years of service, on 9.8.1999. The second upgradation is admissible on completion of at least 24 years of service and respondent No.1 claims that this was admissible to him on 13.1.2001 which was, however, not granted. This led to respondent No.1 filing an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, being Original Application No.346-PB of 2006 that despite representations, he was not being granted the second upgradation and the same should be granted to him with effect from 13.1.2001, along with interest.

(2.) The aforesaid application was resisted by the petitioner-department before us. It has been averred that as per the letter of Engineer-in-Chief dated 17.3.1986, respondent No.1 should have been only granted age relaxation on account of rendering the casual service while appointing him against a regular vacancy but, inadvertently, while issuing the order dated 21.11.1997, his services were regularised with consequential relief. Not only that, undisputedly, all payments have been made to respondent No.1 accordingly, along with allowances. We may note that the letter of the Engineer-in-Chief dated 17.3.1986 is actually qua a particular officer Shri Thilkan KA in the suit filed by him. It is not really a general circular though he was also a Valveman. The petitioner, thus, pleads that on the mistake having been detected almost six years later, a show cause notice dated 28.7.2003 was issued. The show cause notice was a sequitur to an inter-departmental communication dated 22.7.2003 pointing out the mistake in seniority being fixed from the date of casual service rather than of regular service. This show cause notice (Annexure R-2) is cryptic in its terms as it only mentions the fact that the full arrears of pay and allowances for the period of casual service ought not to have been granted to respondent No.1 and calling upon respondent No.1 to submit his version within 15 days. It is not known whether any reply was sent or not but suffice to say that even in pursuance to the show cause notice, no action was taken right till the filing of the Original Application before the Tribunal. It is only thereafter that Annexure A-7 dated 1.12.2006 was issued seeking immediate action to regularise the over payment made to the individual at the earliest and for all other purposes to refer to seniority from the date of regular appointment.

(3.) The petitioner-department, thus, sought to contend that the second upgradation admissible to respondent No.1 would be on completion of 24 years of service and would, thus, become due on 5.1.2011 and, thus, the same could not have been granted to him with effect from 13.1.2001. A rejoinder was filed by respondent No.1 annexing therewith Annexure A-6 and Annexure A-7 (already referred to above). Annexure A-6 deals with counting of regularised casual service for purposes of grant of benefits under the ACP Scheme and reads as under:-