Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 12445
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Hon’ble Mr. Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)
Mr. Dr. Ulhas Atmaramji Nandankar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Ministry of Agriculture – Respondent
O.A. No. 2050/2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. K.K. Pathak
For the Respondents: Shri S S Ghate, Shri Devdutta Sukhdev
The right to Non-Practicing Allowance, once granted based on qualifications and service, cannot be revoked without just cause, and principles of natural justice must be upheld in administrative decisions.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) - Stopping of NPA of the applicant without proper notice held illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of principles of natural justice. (Paras 1, 16, 36, 65)
(B) Employment Law - Eligibility for NPA - The court ruled that the right to receive NPA accrued to the applicant based on prior qualifications and service, and cannot be denied based on post transfer adjustments. (Paras 58, 63)
(C) Administrative Law - Legal Standards - The respondents' reliance on an office memorandum regarding NPA for non-clinical posts as reason to halt NPA was deemed improper as the applicant fulfilled the required qualifications for prior clinical designation. (Paras 61, 65)
Facts of the case:
The applicant challenged the cessation of Non-Practicing Allowance effective May 2018 after having received it continuously for 23 years while serving different roles within veterinary science-related positions.
Findings of Court:
The court found the cessation of NPA arbitrary and mandated its reinstatement along with necessary calculations in accordance with the applicable office memorandum within 90 days.
Issues: The core issue was whether the cessation of NPA for the applicant was justifiable post transfer to a non-clinical role, and if proper procedures had been followed in issuing the order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the applicant's continuous eligibility for NPA since initial appointment and relevant qualifications overrode later administrative classifications that attempted to deny such benefits.
Result: The Original Application was allowed, mandating the continuation of Non-Practicing Allowance.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appointment and npa entitlement established. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 11) |
| 2. discontinuation of npa without notice. (Para 16 , 18 , 19 , 28 , 30 , 33 , 36) |
| 3. respondents justify npa stoppage by policy. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 27 , 29) |
| 4. arguments for npa continuation post-transfer. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 58) |
| 5. court emphasizes statutory rights over discretionary powers. (Para 62 , 70 , 71) |
| 6. order for npa extension and calculation. (Para 73 , 74) |
Order
Per : Shri Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)
The present original application has been filed by the applicant with the following relief:
(A) By way of appropriate order and direction, hold and declare that the action of the respondents in issuing impugned order dated 24/5/2018, office note dated 4/7/2017 and impugned order dated 22/4/2019 and 20/9/2019 thereby stopping the Non-Practicing Allowance (N.P.A.) and dearness allowance thereon of the applicant with immediate effect is illegal, arbitrary, malafide and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as well as principles of natural justice;
(B) By way of appropriate order and direction, quash and set aside impugned order dated 24/5/2018 as well as office note dated 4/7/2017 and impugned order dated 22/4/2019 and 20/9/2019 thereby stopping the Non-Practicing Allowance (N.P.A.) and dearness allowance thereon of the applicant with immediate effect as illegal arbitrary, malafide and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as well as principles of natural justice;
(C) By way of appropriate order and direction, direct the respondents to extend the benefit of Non-Practicing Allowance (N.P.A.) and dearness allowance thereon in view of Office Memorandum dated 7/7/2017 along with all arrears arising therefrom along with interest @ 18 % per annum on the said amount in the interest of justice.
D) By way of appropriate order and direction, direct the respondents to fix the pay of the applicant in the appropriate pay scale after extending the benefits referred to hereinabove in the interest of justice.
E) Allow this original application with cost;
F) Grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant in the Original Application are that on 01/10/1994, the respondents had issued advertisement for various vacant posts including the post of Technical Officer T-6 (Farm Manager). The essential qualification prescribed for the post was 3 years diploma or bachelor degree in veterinary science and 5 years’ experience in the field of veterinary science. The desirable qualification for the aforesaid post was Master Degree in veterinary science. It is stated that, since applicant was possessing the requisite selected.
3. Thereafter, the applicant came to be appointed w.e.f. 04/05/1995, vide order dated 26/03/1995 with the respondents in the capacity of Farm Manager in T-6 grade and posted at National Research Centre, YAK, Dirang, West Kameng, District Arunachal Pradesh vide order dated 08/06/1995. It is submitted that the applicant was paid Non-practicing Allowance (NPA) and dearness allowance thereon by the respondents in each and every month right from the date of his appointment.
4. Further, statement regarding fixation of pay of applicant under Central Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997 on 25/12/1997 had been issued, wherein it is clearly stated that, the applicant was paid Non-practicing Allowance (NPA) and dearness allowance there on as per Sub/Rule 1, (D) of rule 7.
5. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure had issued office memorandum on 15/04/1998 on the subject of revision of rates of Non-practicing Allowance attached to veterinary posts following the Central Civil Service (Revised Pension) Rules 1997 and recommendations made by various pay commissions from time to time. Another office and 30/08/2008. It is submitted that, f
