Terminal Benefits Of Extended Ad-Hoc Service Shall Be Protected Even After Being Reverted: Delhi High Court

Background Facts of the Case

Kishor Kumar Makwana (Petitioner) joined the service as a Senior Research Assistant in 1990, was promoted to Research Officer in 1996 on an ad hoc basis for a period of six months, but continued in that role for over 14 years. However in 2013, the respondents decided to revert him to the post of Senior Research Assistant. Consequently, the respondents passed an order on 06.03.2013 refixing the petitioner's pay by reducing the same to that of a Senior Research Assistant and sought to make recoveries as the petitioner had continued to receive the higher salary of a Research Officer till 06.03.2013. The petitioner filed an application before Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which got dismissed by an order. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed a writ petition.

The petitioner argued that reverting him after such a long period was unjust without any fault on his part, and his pay should be protected otherwise it will cause grave prejudice and hardship to the petitioner.

On the other hand the respondent contended that merely because the petitioner was permitted to work on a higher post for more than 14 years, does not grant him any right to claim that he was entitled to continue on the said post, when it was always made clear to him that his promotion to the post of Research Officer was only on ad hoc basis which made the reversion justified as the promotion was always on an ad hoc basis, and the recoveries were valid.

Findings Of The Court

The court found that while the reversion itself was not contested, the petitioner should receive some benefit for his 14 years of service as a Research Officer. The court relied upon the case of Badri Prasad v. Union of India, wherein the Supreme Court held that in case of ad-hoc promotion in construction organization, the concerned employee cannot be granted relief of regularizing their services on the post of Store man or Clerk merely on the basis of their ad hoc promotion but he has to be protected in Group 'C' post with all the benefits of pay protection, counting service towards higher post.

The court directed that the petitioner's terminal benefits, including pension, be calculated based on the higher salary drawn during those 14 years. Additionally, the demand for recovery of the differential pay for the period from 13.07.2010 to 06.03.2013 was quashed, acknowledging that the petitioner was not responsible for the overpayment.

With the aforesaid observations, the court allowed the writ petition to the extent of protecting the petitioner's terminal benefits and quashing the recovery of overpaid salary, but not for continuing to draw the higher pay post-reversion.

Case No. : W.P.(C) 239/2016

Case Name : Kishore Kumar Makwana vs Union Of India & Anr

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 627

Counsel for the Petitioner : Shiva Sharma, Adv.

Counsel for the Respondents : Vivek Goyal, CGSPC with Gokul Sharma, Sanjeev Joyti, Advs.