Central Administrative Tribunal

Principal Bench

OA No.959/2020

New Delhi, this the 30^th Day of July, 2020

Through Video Conferencing

Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman

Hon’ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member(A)

Smt. Durgesh (Aged 46 years)

D/o Late Sh. M.P. Sharma

R/o E-12, MCD Flats, Kamla Nagar

Delhi-7

Working as Operation Theater Technician (MBID-10015616), Hindu

Rao Hospital. Applicant.

(By Advocate : Shri R. K. Shukla)

Vs.

1. North Delhi Municipal Corporation

Through its Commissioner,

JLL Marg, Civic Centre, New Delhi-2.

2. Medical Superintendent

Hindu Rao Hospital,

Delhi.

3. Administrative Officer

Hindu Rao Hospital,

Delhi. Respondent.

(By Advocate : Shri R. K. Jain)

OA No.959/2020

2

: O R D E R (ORAL) :

Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman:

The applicant is working as Operation Theatre Technician in the

North Delhi Municipal Corporation. He was extended the benefit of 1^st

MACP w.e.f. 01.09.2008. He was issued a Notice dated 24.07.2020,

stating that the 1^st MACP was wrongly fixed and as a result, a sum of

Rs.4,98,759/- was paid in excess. Through the said notice, the Corporation

directed the applicant to deposit the amount referred to above. This O.A.

is filed, challenging the Notice dated 24.07.2020.

2. The applicant contends that the 1^st MACP was fixed strictly in

accordance with the relevant provisions of law and there was absolutely no

basis to direct recovery of the amount. It is also stated that no Show Cause

Notice was issued and, straightaway recovery was directed.

3.

We heard Sri R.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and

Sri R.K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents, who took notice, at the

stage of admission.

OA No.959/2020

3

4.

Though it is named as ‘Notice’, in effect, the one dated 24.07.2020

is an order, directing recovery. It was mentioned that as a result of the

sanction of 1^st MACP, a sum of Rs. 4,98,759/- was paid in excess.

Straightaway the applicant was directed to deposit that amount to the

Municipal Treasury immediately.

5.

If it is found that there was any discrepancy or irregularity in

sanctioning the 1^st MACP or extending other benefit, the only course open

to the respondents is to issue Show Cause Notice, requiring the applicant

to explain as to why the proposed action be not taken. Admittedly, no such

notice was issued in this case. On this short ground, the impugned Notice

is liable to be set aside. We are, however of the view that the Notice can be

treated as the one requiring the applicant to show cause, and the

respondents be given an opportunity to pass an order on consideration of

such representation.

OA No.959/2020

4

6.

We, therefore, dispose of this O.A, directing that the impugned

Notice dated 24.07.2020 shall be treated as a Show Cause Notice, giving

15 days time to the applicant to submit his explanation to the proposed

action. It shall be open to the 3^rd respondent to pass a reasoned order on

consideration of representation. Till such an order is passed, no recovery

shall be effected from the applicant. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Mohd. Jamshed)

(Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)

Member (A)

Chairman

/pv/