Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 395
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, C.J., RANJAN SHARMA, J.
Manoj Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Union of India and others – Respondents
CWP No.3309 of 2016
Decided on: 07-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Inderjeet Singh Narwal, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor of India [Senior Advocate] with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General
The court held that a candidate's willingness to serve at a lower Grade Pay must be honored, and withdrawal of an offer without allowing for necessary documentation is improper.
Headnote:
(A) Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Order dated 14.12.2015 - Writ petition challenging the dismissal of the applicant's request to join as Security Assistant due to Grade Pay conditions - The Tribunal held that the petitioner could not be considered for the post as he did not express interest in the prescribed Grade Pay. (Paras 1, 8, 12)
(B) Employment Law - Conditions for appointment - The requirement for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Cadre Controlling Authority was emphasized, and the withdrawal of the offer without allowing the petitioner to furnish the NOC was deemed improper. (Paras 9, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was selected for a Security Assistant position but was denied due to Grade Pay exceeding Rs.2,000/-. He had expressed willingness to serve at a lower Grade Pay but was not allowed to join. (Paras 1, 12)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner had been willing to serve at a lower Grade Pay and had provided the necessary NOC, thus the withdrawal of the offer was unjustified. (Paras 9, 12)
Issues: The main issues included whether the petitioner could be denied the position based on Grade Pay and the validity of the withdrawal of the offer without allowing the petitioner to provide the NOC. (Paras 1, 9)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the respondents could not withdraw the offer without giving the petitioner an opportunity to furnish the requisite NOC, as he had expressed willingness to serve at a lower Grade Pay. (Paras 9, 12)
Result: The petition was allowed, directing the Union of India to permit the petitioner to join as Security Assistant within six weeks.
JUDGMENT :
G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice
Present writ petition challenges the order of Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.063/00139/ 14, titled as Manoj Kumar Versus Union of India and others [Annexure P-12], decided on 14.12.2015, except the relief claimed for setting aside of order dated 18.12.2012 [Annexure A-1], subject matter wasnot interfered with. Primarily the ground was that the Grade Pay of the petitioner was more than Rs.2,000/- and since the petitioner himself made a prayer that this condition should not be imposed that a person having higher Grade Pay should be considered for the post of Security Assistant and he be allowed to work in the Ministry of External Affairs, the Central Administrative Tribunal came to the conclusion that it was a condition as per the Rule. Therefore, it was held that the Department could not be directed to modify or increase the condition and it could only pay Security Assistants as per the Rules. The petitioner having been drawing higher Grade Pay had not expressed any interest in serving in the Ministry of External Affairs at the prescribed Grade Pay of Rs.2,000/- and, therefore, he could not be considered for appointment as Security Assistant and OA was held to be without merit and ultimately dismissed.
2. We have perused the paper-book. Apparently, the petitioner had been selected for deployment amongst the Police Personnel of Himachal Pradesh, in the Ministry of External Affairs as Security Assistant for a period of five years, which would be clear from a letter dated 06.12.2012 [Annexure P-6], addressed by the Principal Secretary [Home] Government of Himachal Pradesh to the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner alongwith four other officials was selected by the Screening Committee of the Department, on account of his willingness to serve as Security Assistant on deputation basis in the Bureau of Security, Ministry of External Affairs, as per communication dated 15.09.2012 [Annexure R-2]. Vide letter dated 07.12.2012, the approval was given for deployment and the date of joining in the Ministry, subject to the condition that the official concerned should carry with them all documents as required by the Ministry of External Affairs, vide letters dated 23.11.2012 and 26.11.2012.
3. A perusal of letter dated 26.11.2012, Annexure P-5, would go on to show that if the Grade Pay of the selected candidate is Rs.2,400/-, an NOC from the Cadre Controlling Authority conveying his No Objection to serve on a post having lower Grade Pay had to be brought by the candidate at the time of joining the Ministry. Relevant part of said letter reads as under:-
“2. The aforesaid official will be on deputation to this Ministry for a period of five (05) years with effect from the date of their joining this Ministry. Their Grade Pay should not exceed Rs.2000/-. If the Grade Pay of the selected candidate is Rs.2400/-, an NOC from the Cadre Controlling Authority conveying their No Objection to serve on a post having lower Grade Pay must be brought by the candidate at the time of joining the Ministry.
With best regards.”
4. Apparently, as per the Revised Pay Rules of 2012, the petitioner being a Constable was initially getting a Grade Pay of Rs.1,900/- and thereafter Rs.3,200/- and it was also applicable to the similarly situated persons and other officials also who were getting Grade Pay of more than Rs.2,000/- of higher ranks.
5. Before the petitioner could join the Ministry of External Affairs, vide decision dated 18.12.2012 [Annexure P-13] it had been noticed that Grade Pay of Officers from the State of Himachal Pradesh as such were more than Rs.2,400/- and since there was no Grade Pay of Rs.2,400/- and had been revised to Rs.3,200/- from 01.10.2012, therefore, it was sought to rescind and withdraw the call letter’s issued to all official’s of Himachal Pradesh.
6. Representation had been filed by the petitioner alongwith others [Annexure P-8], that they were willing to serve in the lower
