CWP No. 1095 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 1095 of 2009 Date of decision 23 .2.2010 Union of India and others ... Petitioners Versus Central Administrative Tribunal and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.MS Cheema ,Advocate for the petitioners 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The Union of India has approached this Court for quashing of order dated 16.5.2008 (P.5) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal') in OA Nos. 328, 387 , 388 and 389 /CH/2007 upholding the order dated 14.2.2007 passed by respondent no. 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent nos. 2 to 8 joined the services of the petitioner as Assistant-compiler and were promoted as Compilers. They were further promoted as Statistical Assistant/ Investigators on 30.11.1990. In the years 1992 and 1993, on the completion of work of Census, respondent nos. 2 to 8 were reverted back to the substantive posts. It is averred that Respondent nos. 2 to 4 were again re-promoted as Statistical Assistant/ Investigator on regular basis and were inadvertently given the benefit of 7 to 10 months of their past service for the grant of increment by ante-dating the actual date. On 28.3.2006, petitioner CWP No. 1095 of 2009 2 no. 4 issued a letter 28.3.2006 (P.1) whereby it was clarified that the employees, including respondent nos. 2 to 8, who have not completed 12 months period on any promoted post shall not be entitled for benefit of ante- dated increment without completing 12 months. Accordingly, on 14.2.2007, petitioner no. 3 issued orders for recovery of the excess amount which was paid to the respondents by ante-dating their date of increment. The respondents challenged the order dated 14.2.2007 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has held that the period during which the applicants worked as Statistical Assistant have not been taken into account for granting them the benefit of increment in the higher scale. The view of the Tribunal is discernible from the following para of the order: “ It is seen that applicants Nos. 1 and 2 were promoted on different dates to the post of Statistical Assistant and reverted to their substantive post subsequently. They were, however, subsequently promoted on regular basis. It appears that the period 1.3.1993 to 31.12.1993 pertaining to applicant no. and from 1.2.92 to 31.12.92 in respect of applicant no.2 have not been taken into account for granting them the benefit of increment in the higher pay scale. In this regard, decision (11) under FR 26 is relevant, which reads as follows:- “(11) Date of next increment to be determined first counting past officiating spells in a higher post.- A question has been raised as to how the date of next increment should be determined in the case of a Government servant who has officiated in a higher post in short spells on different occasions before he is CWP No. 1095 of 2009 3 regularly appointed in that post i.e. whether date of next increment should be reckoned in the manner laid down in the proviso to FR 26(a) and should precede the application of the latter. In other words, the pay and date of increment should first be determined by giving the benefit of past service under the proviso to FR 22, the proviso to FR 26(a) does not come into the picture at this stage. The pay and date of increment having once been determined in terms of the proviso to FR 22, the proviso to FR 26(a) will then have to be applied to postpone that date of increment by spells of non qualifying periods, if any occurring thereafter i.e. after regular appointment in the post.” It has been seen that FR 26(a) that all duty in a post on a time scale counts for increments in that time scale. It, therefore, appears that the unaccounted period of 10 months service in respect of both the applicants which has not been taken into account while granting them the next increment is not sustainable in the eyes of law. More so, the impugned orders dated 14.2.2007 (A1) have been issued without any notice to the applicants. Undoubtedly, the order A1 entails civil/ evil consequences for the applicants in as much as it reduces their pay and the principle of audi alteram parterm requires an opportunity to be given to the applicants before issuing the adverse order against them. This having not been done, the principles of natural justice have not been complied with in this CWP No. 1095 of 2009 4 case and as such, the impugned orders (A1) are liable to be quashed on this ground also and it is so ordered.” Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length we are of the view that no interference with the well reasoned order of the Tribunal is required. The petition is wholly without merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jitendra Chauhan) 23.2.2010 Judge okg