The Lieutenant Governor And Others v. Mrs. Rajini Devi (Tewari)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] ...

WP.CT/186/2021 The Lieutenant Governor and others ... Petitioners Vs.

Mrs. Rajini Devi (Tewari) ... Respondent Mr.Shatadru Chakraborty[through virtual mode] Mr. Ramendu Agarwal, Advocates ... for the petitioners Mr. Rajinder Singh, Advocate ... for the respondent March 15, 2022 [SR] Item No.3 This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 24th December, 2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench (Circuit at Port Blair).

The contention of the writ petitioners herein is that the respondent-employee was serving on adhoc basis and was not regularized. In spite of the same, the Tribunal below has allowed the prayers of the respondent with regard to fixation of pay with effect from the date of appointment of the respondent-employee on an adhoc basis.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the case of regularization is pending separately before the Tribunal and since regularization has not taken place, the order passed by the Tribunal with regard to pay fixation is incorrect in law.

Mr. Singh, appearing on behalf of the respondentemployee has relied on the judgments passed in State of Haryana vs. Amarjit Singh reported in (1996)11 SCC 725, State of Rajasthan and another vs. Chandra Shekhar and

another in Civil Appeal No.3441/1998 and Shri Parimal Halder vs. The Union of India in WPCT No.683 of 2012 to buttress his argument that in case of conversion of an adhoc appointment to a new regular appointment, the fixation of pay and benefits that have enured to the employee have to be taken into consideration for fixing the pay in the regular appointment.

It is noted that the respondent-employee was in the pay band of Rs.15600-39100/- and was getting a total sum of Rs.1,31,764/- when she was working in adhoc basis. Surprisingly, upon being converted to a regular appointment, her salary has come down to Rs.74,188/-. The respondent-employee submits that such a reduction in salary is not just unfair but grossly illegal and against the judgments passed by the Supreme Court. Upon considering the arguments raised by both the parties, we are of the view that the judgment of the Tribunal below has been passed upon consideration of the Supreme Court's judgments on this point, and upon correctly interpreting the ratio of the Supreme Court judgments and, accordingly, does not require to be interfered with. In light of the order passed above, WPCT/186/2021 is disposed of.

( Shekhar B. Saraf, J. ) ( Kesang Doma Bhutia, J. )