CAT castigate higher administration of the J&K who twist and bends the Rules to benefit the officers of their choice
JKUT (Jammu), June-21-2021-( JNF):- Central Administartion Tribunal Comprising Chairman Justice L. Narasimha Reddy and Adminstrative Member Tarun Shridhar in a hard heating judgment castigated the Higher Officials of J&K administration who twist and bends the Rules,to benefit the officers of their choice, whereas it stuck to the Rules in case of the normal officers.
This significant judgment has been passed in a petition filed by Joginder Lal Bhagat who was initially appointed as an Accountant in the Ravi Tawi Command Area Farmers Service Cooperative Society Limited (for short ‘Society’)between 1976 and 1984. He took part in Combined Competitive Examination held for Kashmir Administrative Service (KAS) in the year 1984. He attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2010. At that stage, just before his retirement, he submitted a representation to the Government, with a request to add the service rendered by him in Society, for the purpose of pension. That request was rejected, through an order dated 20.01.2010 followed by another order dated 19.02.2010.
The applicant contends that there are several instances of the services rendered in Non-Government Organizations being counted in other Government service as and when the persons were selected to KAS and in his case, the benefit was denied. He cited the examples of Mr. Kuldeep Raj Sharma, Mr. Ram Paul Gupta and two others. The applicant contends that there was a clearcase of discrimination on the part of the respondents.
CAT after hearing Adv Ashok Sharma for the petitioner whereas Deputy AG Rajesh Thappa for the respondents observed that The facts, as presented in the pleadings and the annexures in this case, reflect a lack of clarity and consistency on the part of the Government. Orders were passed discriminately extending the benefit of counting the past service of the officers selected to KAS, in certain cases, by relaxing the Rules and in other cases, by citingsome other reasons. The applicant expected the same treatment, but the respondents denied him such benefit. The whole episode reflects the unsatisfactory way of functioning of the Government, in the context of treating the officers of the level of KAS.
CAT observed that it is not uncommon that whenever a person is selected and appointed in the Government service, the past service rendered by him earlier to that, is counted, subject to certain conditions. Much would depend upon the nature of employment,which the concerned official had before joining the Government service. Firstly, the earlier service must be in a Government Department or Government Undertaking or establishment, and secondly, there must be a parity of duties or even the pay structure. The applicant was in the service of a Society where the facility of pension was not available. Secondly, he received all the terminal benefits from the Society before he joined the Government service. Such cases can no doubt, be rejected.
The applicant, however, filed orders dated 15.10.2008 issued in favour of Mr. Shri Kuldeep Raj Sharma, Member of the J&K Secretariat (Gazetted) Service-I (under Secretaries cadre) and another order dated 12.12.2006, issued in favour of Mr. Ram Paul Gupta, KAS. In their cases, the sanction was accorded for relaxation of Rules, so much so, the terminal benefits, that were received by Mr. Kuldeep Raj Sharma from the earlier employment, were required to be returned and the service rendered therein was added to his Government service. In the case of Mr. Ram Paul Gupta, a condition was imposed to the effect that he should not have availed the terminal benefits from the Bank where he worked. Two other orders are also filed, which areonthe same lines.
CAT after close scrutiny of the orders reveals that the higher administration of the State was twisting and bending the Rules,to benefit the officers of their choice, whereas it stuck to the Rules in case of the persons, like the applicant. It is not as if there was a long time gap between the dates on which the orders were passed or that there was change in the law. It is a clear cut case of discrimination in the context of granting relaxation. The applicant contends that he was discriminated simply because he belongs to scheduled caste community and one cannot ignore the plea,if one takes into account, the text and context of the orders passed in favour of others officers.
CAT further said that the Government is required to be consistent, particularly when it deals with the services of its top and senior officers in the administration. Discrimination of this nature would send a wrong signal and in a way, would reflect the method of functioning of the Government.
CAT said that the best thing for the Government, even at this stage, is either to withdraw the benefits, which were granted to the officers, contrary to law, in favour of officers, similarly situated as the applicant, or to grant the same benefits to the applicant.
With these observations, CAT allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order and directed the Chief Secretary of the State of Jammu &Kashmir to take into account, all the cases in which the past service of KAS officers in other organizations were added and that of the applicant; and to pass a consistent order, strictly in accordance with law, if it is proposed to withdraw the benefit granted to any officer, notice shall be issued. An exercise in this behalf shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. JNF