Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 10192
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, J, MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, A
Deepak Chandra Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture – Respondent
OA No. 1031/2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sh. Harpal Singh proxy counsel for Sh. Rishav Sharma
For the Respondents: Sh. A.K. Sharma, Sh. Sandeep Dhanda
Reversion of employees without valid qualifications or training is impermissible, especially when an applicant has been compliant, and retrospective recovery is prohibited under the Administrative Tribunals Act.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Matter pertains to reversion from the post of Telephone Operator to Multi Tasking Staff on the ground of not acquiring PBX training - Validity of such reversion and the retrospective effect of recovery without misrepresentation are major points of law deliberated upon - Court observes that the applicant had continuously served in the post under legal appointments, and the lack of available training institutes absolves him from the blame of non-compliance with training requirements. (Paras 1, 5, 25, 35)
(B) The Tribunal reaffirms the principle that reversion or recovery claims must not act retroactively where the employee has been compliant with job duties and possesses the required qualifications when appointed. (Paras 32, 34)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was initially appointed as Telephone Operator under compassionate grounds in 2009 but was later reverted to MTS due to non-completion of stipulated training, despite the absence of such training facilities. The applicant successfully contested the reversion, asserting the need for clear communication regarding training availability.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found the reversion order unreasonable and underscored the necessity for treating the applicant in the original post with all benefits restored and no recovery of previously issued allowances.
Issues: Value of compliance with qualifications and legal implications of retrospective action on employment roles.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded the imperative of an employee's protection under disability laws and against unlawful reversion under administrative orders, emphasizing statutory protection in cases where employees acquire disabilities during service.
Result: The impugned order is quashed, and the applicant is to be reinstated with full benefits.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. context of compassionate appointment and conditions for qualification. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments regarding fulfillment of qualifications and issues with training access. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 3. legal safeguards and prohibitions against recovery and reversion post qualifying. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 34) |
| 4. final decision affecting reinstatement and benefits. (Para 35 , 36) |
ORDER
Per: SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J):
1. The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief(s):-
(i) That the impugned Order dated 05.07.2018 (Annexure A-1) reverting the applicant from the Group '' post of Telephone Operator carrying Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/- to the Group 'D' post of Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) carrying Grade Pay of Rs. 1800/ in the pay 5200- 20200 scale of Rs. retrospectively w.e.f. and that 05.06.2009, too the initial date of appointment of applicant on the post of on Telephone Operator compassionate grounds and further ordering the of pay and resultant recovery allowances, be quashed and set-aside, in the interest of justice.
(ii) That it be further declared that once the respondents themselves have failed to notify any recognized Institute imparting PBX Training Course and also failed to inform the applicant about any institute from where applicant could undergone the PBX Training Course, then the applicant reverted for want of such PBX Training cannot be Course.
(iii) That the applicant be held entitled to benefit of DOPT O.Μ. No. 18017/1/2014-Estt (L) dated 25.02.2015 which has been issued upon amendment of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 vide the DOPT Notification No. 13026/1/2002-Est (L) dated the 15/16th January, 2004 consequent to the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (PWD Act, 1995) which came into force from 7thFebruary, 1996. DOPT OM dated 25.02.2015 also notices the case of Kunal Singh v. Union of India , [2003] 4 SCC 524 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
(iv). That it be declared that the an employee cannot be reverted to a post on which he was never appointed and an employee cannot be reverted retrospectively.
(v) That the action of respondents in effecting recovery w.e.f. 05.06.2009 be declared arbitrary and illegal in the light of the fact no fraud or that there is misrepresentation on the part of applicant in drawing Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/- w.e.f. 05.06.2009. Applicant has got what he was entitled he having been actually worked on the post of from Telephone Operator 05.06.2009 till the passing of present impugned order and his pay was fixed rightly pursuant in Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/- upon his compassionate appointment on the post of Telephone Operator.
(vi). That the applicant be held entitled to all consequential benefits and reliefs from due dates, in the interest of justice.
2. The facts as enumerated in the Original Application are that the father of the applicant, namely Sh. Bipin Chandra Singh, died in service in the year 2005 while working with the respondent Department as a Poultry Attendant, CPDO, Bhubaneswar. On denial of appointment on compassionate grounds, the applicant was compelled to file O.A. No. 413 of 2007 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, which was decided on 25.10.2007. In implementation thereof, the applicant was appointed as Telephone Operator at the Central Sheep Breeding Farm, Hisar, in the pay scale of Rs. 5200–20200 + GP Rs.1900/- vide appointment letter dated 15/19.05.2009 (Annexure A-2). The appointment was subject to the conditions that the applicant would (i) acquire Matriculation qualification within two years of appointment, and (ii) obtain a PBX Telephone Operator Training Certificate from a recognized institute within one year. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 wrote a letter dated 21.05.2010 to BSNL, Hisar to ascertain whether PBX Training Course was available there, and i
