Allowed

Y. S. Tanwar v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC16 Jan 2024W.P.(C)/12201/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a CAT order dismissing his OA on additional remuneration for holding additional charge as Registrar without hearing counsel. The High Court found no oral submissions were made and set aside the order, remanding the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned CAT order dated 19.04.2022 set aside; OA remanded to Tribunal for fresh hearing on merits; listed 31.01.2024.

Y. S. Tanwar Vs Union of India & Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 12201/2023

¶4

Y. S. TANWAR ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Abha Kulshreshtha, Adv.

¶5

Versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondent Through: Mrs. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC with Mr. Rahul Sharma, G.P., Mr. Aakash Pathak and Ms. Pinky Parekh, Advs. for UOI.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR O R D E R % 16.01.2024

¶8

The present petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) in O.A. No. 2923/2015. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has rejected the O.A. preferred by the petitioner/applicant.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the OA was filed way back in 2015 and due to the Covid-19 pandemic, was not being listed before the learned Tribunal during 2020 and 2021. However, when the OA was listed before the learned Tribunal on 19.04.2022 , about which date none of the parties was informed, the matter was taken up for disposal and consequently the impugned order came to be passed. By drawing our attention to paragraphs 4 & 5 of the impugned order,

¶10

This is a digitally signed order.

¶11

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/05/2024 at 12:28:42

¶12

she contends that in fact even the respondent’s main counsel was not present on the date, the learned Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the O.A. on the basis of the pleadings itself. She submits that the petitioner has a good prima facie case and prays that he be granted at least one opportunity to make oral submissions in support of his O.A.

¶13

Issue notice. Learned counsel for the respondents accepts notice and denies that the matter was disposed of without hearing learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

However, having perused paragraph nos. 4 & 5 of the impugned order which are being reproduced hereunder, we find merit in the petitioner’s plea that the O.A. was decided without any of the parties having made any oral submissions:

¶15

“4. The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit opposing the OA. It is stated that with the approval of the Hon'ble Minister of Communication and Information Technology, the applicant, who was a Scientist 'D', was assigned the duties of the post of Registrar, SICLDR vide order dated 19.03.2012. It is contended that the applicant had not been assigned the duties of the said post on additional charge basis. It is also submitted that the representations submitted by the applicant were examined as and when received. It is submitted that the since the post of Registrar, SICLDR was not in existence till 26.05.2013, consideration for grant of additional

¶16

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/05/2024 at 12:28:42

¶17

remuneration for the period starting from 19.03.2012 till 26.05.2023 to the applicant was not felt justified. It is also contended that vide note dated 23.01.2015, the DoP&T was requested to advise as to whether the applicant could be granted additional remuneration under the provisions of FR -49 or any kind of special pay under any other provision covered under Government of India Rules for the period starting from 27.05.2013 (date of creation of the post of Registrar) till 16.06.2014 (the date uptil when the applicant discharged the duties of the post of Registrar, SICLDR). The DoP&T vide Note dated 15.04.2015 clarified that in terms of OM dated 28.01.2000, the additional pay for holding additional charge m PSUs/ Autonomous Bodies/Registered Societies etc. is not permissible under FR 49 and no additional remuneration can be allowed for the same.

¶18

5. There is no representation for the applicant. However, Mr. S. K. Gulia proxy for Mr. R. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents is present, but he did not advance any argument.”

¶19

In the light of this position emerging from the record, we are of the view that taking into account the nature of the grievances raised by the petitioner who is aged about 70 years, it will be in the interest of

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/05/2024 at 12:28:42

¶22

justice that he is granted at least one opportunity to make his submissions before the learned Tribunal.

¶23

The impugned order is, accordingly, set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal for fresh adjudication on merits. Needless to state, while hearing the matter afresh, the learned Tribunal will not be influenced by it’s finding(s) arrived at in the impugned order. It is, however, made clear that the impugned order is being set aside only on the grounds noted hereinabove and will not be construed as expression of any opinion on the merits of the rival claims of the parties.

¶24

List the O.A. before the learned Tribunal on 31.01.2024 for directions.

¶25

REKHA PALLI, J

¶26

RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J

¶27

JANUARY 16, 2024 acm

¶28

Y. S. Tanwar v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y. S. Tanwar v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghuvansh Prasad Singh Vs the Government Ofn.C.T. of Delhi and Ors.

Am Mining India Private Limited Vs Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), Delhi & Ors.

M/S Steel Authority of India Limited (Sail) Vs Union of India & Anr.

Jk Tyre and Industries Ltd. Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Ors.

Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs Dr. Rohini Pakhiddey

Subhojit Chatterjee Vs Union of India and Ors..

Shri Venkateshwar Constructions-Vdb Projectes (P) Ltd. (Jv) Vs Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Govt of India

Ms Shivansh Associates Vs Ms Roop Raj Banquet Restro Bar and Ors.

Union of India & Anr. Vs Sushil Kohli

G.M. Sampath Kumar Vs Union of India & Anr.

Vijayan T.G. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Umesh Kumar Tyagi Vs Dav Public School & Ors.

D.R. Arora Vs the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Ors.

S.K. Srivastava Vs Union of India & Ors.