IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 549 OF 2009 (SS) Pratap Singh …………Petitioner. Versus Chairman & Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and another. …….Respondents. Mr. I.P. Gairola, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. M.C. Pande, Advocate for respondents. 5th November, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. I.P. Gairola, Advocate for petitioner and Mr. M.C. Pande, Advocate for respondents. The petitioner is an employee of Food Corporation of India. At the relevant time i.e. in the year, 2009, he was working as a Manager (Accounts) at Dehradun when an order dated 12.5.2009 was passed by the Executive Director, Food Corporation of India, Zonal Office (North), by which the petitioner has been reverted to a lower scale to the post of A.G.I. (Accounts) and a recovery of Rs. 3.5 lacs has also been instituted against the petitioner. However, the petitioner states that due to inadvertence excess amount was paid to the D.P.S. workers and the liability has been wrongly fixed upon the petitioner. The petitioner states that in any case the amount is being recovered from such persons. Be that as it may, Mr. M.C. Pande, learned counsel for the Food Corporation of India has stated that the petitioner has an alternative remedy against the punishment order by way of filing an appeal under The 2 Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1971 (from hereinafter referred to as Regulation, 1971). Regulation 68 of the Regulation, 1971 reads as follows: “68. Orders against which appeal lie: Subject to the provisions of Regulation 67, an employee of the Corporation may prefer an appeal against all or any of the following orders, namely: (i) an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under Regulation 66; (ii) an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Regulation 54 whether made by the disciplinary authority or by any appellate or reviewing authority; (iii) an order enhancing any penalty, imposed under Regulation 54; (iv) an order which- a) denies or varies to his disadvantage his pay, allowances, and other retirement benefits as regulation by regulations or by agreement; or b) interprets to his disadvantage the provisions of any such regulation or agreement; v) an order- a) reverting him while officiating in a higher grade or post to a lower grade or post otherwise than as a penalty; b) reducing or withholding the terminal benefits or denying the maximum terminal benefits admissible him under the regulations; c) determining the subsistence and other allowances be paid to him for the period of suspension or for the period during which he is 3 deemed to be under suspension or for any portion thereof; d) determining his pay and allowances— i) for the period of suspension, or ii) for the period from the date of his dismissal, removal, or compulsory retirement from service, or from the date of his reduction to a lower grade, post, time scale or stage in a time-scale of pay, to the date of his retirement or restoration to this grade or post, or e) determining whether or not the period from the date of his suspension or from the date of his dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement or reduction to a lower grade post, time-scale of pay or stage in a time-scale of pay to the date of his reinstatement or restoration to his grade or post shall be treated as a period spent on duty for any purpose. Explanation: In this regulation- (i) the expression “employee of the Corporation” includes a person who has ceased to be in the service of the Corporation. (ii) the expression ‘terminal benefits’ includes gratuity/and any other retirement benefit.” It is clear from the aforesaid provision that the appeal is provided against the order presently impugned in this petition, though the period of filing an appeal under Regulation 70 is 45 days. The Appeal under Regulation 69 would lie before the Chairman/Managing Director of Food Corporation of India. As such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner. At this stage, learned 4 counsel for the petitioner Mr. I.P. Gairola has stated that he has filed a writ petition instead of availing the alternative remedy inasmuch as the appellate authority cannot consider the interim application of the petitioner, which is for stay of the recovery against the petitioner against which a relief is immediately required by the petitioner. The apprehension of the petitioner is misplaced as under Regulation 72 of the Regulation, 1971 the appellate authority has got enough power even to grant interim order. Regulation 72 (3) reads as follows: “(3) In an appeal against any other order specified in regulation 68, the appellate authority shall consider all the circumstances of the case and make such orders as it may deem just and equitable.” In view of the aforesaid provision, in a given case, the appellate authority may pass interim order if it considers it just and equitable. Therefore, such a prayer for interim relief can also be made to the appellate authority and arguments of the counsel for the petitioner on this score are misplaced. However, since the matter is pending before this Court, it is directed that the appellate authority, before whom if such an appeal is filed by the petitioner, shall sympathetically consider condoning the delay in filing the appeal, as this matter has remained pending before this Court, and in the circumstances of the case shall dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 05.11.2009 Rathour