Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1076
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
Dr. Jahangir Ahmed – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir – Respondent
Original Application No. 361/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Arshad Majid Malik
For the Respondents: Mr. Sudesh Magotra, ld. AAG
Promissory estoppel prevents recovery of excess payments made per binding engagement terms where employee not at fault and altered position detrimentally.
Headnote:Under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and S.O. 364 dated 27.11.2020 governing academic arrangements in medical colleges, dental professionals were engaged as tutors/registrars with explicit clause prohibiting private practice and entitling them to Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA). Respondents issued orders for recovery of NPA paid, claiming it inadmissible under S.O. 364. Court found engagement orders binding, payments made without applicant fault, and recovery arbitrary. Key issue: Whether recovery of NPA paid pursuant to express engagement terms is permissible despite subsequent administrative clarification. Ratio: Engagement orders created enforceable promise; promissory estoppel applies as applicants altered position by forgoing private practice; recovery prohibited per Supreme Court precedents where no employee fault (paras 9-12). Original Application allowed; impugned recovery orders quashed; amounts refunded within 12 weeks; no further recoveries.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicants seek quashing of npa recovery orders. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondents claim npa inadmissible under s.o. 364. (Para 3) |
| 3. engagement orders explicitly promised npa for no private practice. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. promissory estoppel and no-fault rule bar retrospective recovery. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. orders quashed; recovery refunded, no further deductions. (Para 15 , 16) |
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The applicants have filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: -
a) “Set aside/quash the Order No. ME-Gen/157/2024-02 dated 23.01.2025 issued by respondent No. 1 to Respondent No. 2 for initiation of recoveries purported to be made by the respondent no. 2 from the salaries of the applicants on account of Non- Practicing allowance paid by the respondent No. 2 to the applicants.
b) Quash order no. 01-Accts of 2025 dated 06.03.2025 issued from the office of respondent no. 2, whereby above said Order No. ME-Gen/157/2024-02 dated 23.01.2025 issued by respondent no. 1 sought to be implemented.
c) Restrain the respondents from making any recoveries from the salaries of the Applicants on account of Non-Practicing allowance which already stands paid to the applicants.
d) Commanding the respondents to reimburse the amount of Rs 10,000 deducted from the salary of the applicants.
Prayer for the grant of any other interim or final relief as may be deemed appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the applicant.
2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicants in their pleadings, are as follows: -
a) The applicants are qualified dental professionals engaged as Tutors, Registrars and Demonstrators in various departments of Indira Gandhi Government Dental College, Jammu. Their engagement was made against available vacancies strictly in accordance with S.O. 364 dated 27.11.2020, which governs appointments on Academic Arrangement basis in Government Medical and Dental Colleges of the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir. The applicants were appointed from time to time between May 2022 and December 2022, and their tenure has been extended periodically on yearly basis. They are admittedly continuing to discharge their duties on their respective posts as on date.
b) The engagement orders issued in favour of the applicants contained an express and unambiguous condition that the engagement shall be on whole-time basis and that the applicants shall not engage themselves in any form of private practice. In lieu of such restriction, the engagement orders specifically provided that the applicants shall be entitled to Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) as admissible under rules. It was further stipulated that if any applicant was found indulging in private practice, his or her engagement would be liable to termination without notice. The applicants accepted the said terms unconditionally and acted upon the same in letter and spirit.
c) Pursuant to the said engagement orders, the applicants strictly refrained from private practice and devoted themselves exclusively to academic, clinical and institutional duties assigned to them by the respondent-college. In recognition of this restriction and in compliance with the express terms of engagement, the respondent No. 2 regularly released NPA @ 20% of basic pay in favour of the applicants from time to time. There was never any objection, audit remark, or dispute raised by the respondents regarding such payment for a considerable period, nor was there any allegation of misrepresentation or concealment on the part of the applicants.
d) However, abruptly and without any prior notice or opportunity of hearing, respondent No. 1 issued communication No. ME- Gen/157/2024-02 dated 23.01.2025 to respondent No. 2, stating that appointees engaged on Academic Arrangement basis under S.O. 364 of 2020 are not entitled to Non-Practicing Allowance and advising initiation o
