W.P(C) No.11279/2009 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (C.) No.11279/2009 % Date of Decision: 08.12.2009 Sh.B.P.Kaushik Vaid (Retd) …. Petitioner Through Mr.G.P.Gehlaut, Advocate Versus Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr …. Respondents Through Ms.Rinchen O.Bhutia, Advocate, Advocate for the respondent No.1. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO ANIL KUMAR, J. * The petitioner had claimed grant of non-practicing allowance from 1st January, 1986 which was declined by the Central Administrative Tribunal by order dated 13th May, 2009 in O.A No.1057/2008 titled Sh.B.P.Kaushik Vaid (Retd) v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr. The petitioner had asserted that he was appointed as Vaid in A&U Tibbia College, Delhi on 29th July, 1975 and was confirmed on 30th July, 1978 and he was superannuated on 31st August, 1997. The pay of W.P(C) No.11279/2009 Page 2 of 4 the petitioner was fixed in the scale of Rs.2200-4000/- with effect from 1st January, 1986. The petitioner was given the benefit of NPA from 1st January, 1986, however, a corrigendum dated 27th December, 2000 was issued that he was entitled for NPA from 4th July, 1991 instead of 1st January, 1986. The petitioner had challenged the same on the ground that Sh.Shah Nawaj Ali also employed as a Hakim in A&U Tibbia College had been granted NPA (non practicing allowance) from 1st January, 1986 and, therefore, he is entitled for the same from 1st January, 1986 and not from 4th July, 1991 in terms of corrigendum issued by the respondent No.2. The petitioner also challenged issuance of corrigendum dated 27th December, 2000 granting non performance allowance from 4th July, 1991 instead of 1st January, 1986 on the ground that once NPA was granted to him from 1st January, 1986, a right had accrued to him which could not be withdrawn arbitrarily. The plea of the petitioner was contested on the ground that Sh.Shah Nawaj Ali, Hakim was granted NPA from 1st January, 1986 wrongly and show cause notice has been issued to him for recovery of the amount paid to him wrongly. The respondent also placed reliance on State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh, 2000 SCC (L&S) 845 holding that the benefit wrongly given to one person cannot be a ground to claim the same benefit by another employee unless the benefit W.P(C) No.11279/2009 Page 3 of 4 granted is in accordance with the rules. The reliance was also placed on the allegation that the request of A&U Tibbia College Staff Association about payment of NPA with effect from 1st January, 1986 was declined and this fact was also communicated to the Staff Association by order dated 25th September, 1992. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to demonstrate and show that the petitioner is entitled for NPA from 1st January, 1986. His claim is founded on the fact that Sh.Shah Nawaj Ali, Hakim was granted NPA from 1st January, 1986 wrongly and recovery proceedings against him have already been initiated. The Tribunal also noted that show cause notice is not required as in case of petitioner NPA had not been paid, whereas in case of Sh.Shah Nawaj Ali the amount of NPA was paid and, therefore, a show cause notice was given to him and in case of petitioner it is not required. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to make out a case that the petitioner has a vested right to claim NPA from 1st January, 1986 on the basis of order dated 29th June, 2000. No infirmity has been pointed out by the petitioner in the order dated 4th July, 1991 restricting his NPA from 4th July, 1991 instead of 1st January, 1986. In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner has not been able to make out any grounds which will entitle petitioner for interference by W.P(C) No.11279/2009 Page 4 of 4 this Court against the order dated 13th May, 2009 of Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A No.1057/2008, Sh.B.P.Kaushik Vaid (Retd) v. Govt of NCT of Delhi. The writ petition in the facts and circumstances is without any merit and it is, therefore, dismissed. ANIL KUMAR, J. DECEMBER 08, 2009 VIPIN SANGHI, J. k