BINU MATHEW Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter relates to the course projected in WPS No. 4667/2019 which was disposed of as per the common judgment dated 27.02.2020 passed by this Court WPS Nos. 4667 of 2019 and 4899 of 2019.

(2.) The issue projected in the writ petition was mainly with regard to the reduction in the pay packet of the Petitioner who was appointed to the post of Assistant Professor (Nursing) in the AIIMS, Raipur, pursuant to the advertisement issued on 28.12.2011. The Petitioner was paid the salary and the grade pay, which came to be reduced pursuant to an audit objection, referring to some inconsistencies / discrepancies, which was subjected to challenge before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (for short, 'the Tribunal'). A decision was rendered by the Tribunal in favour of the Petitioner, placing reliance on a similar verdict passed by Patna High Court, however without much discussion as to the issue involved.

(3.) This was sought to be challenged by Respondents herein by filing WPS Nos. 4667 of 2019; which came to be finalized as per Annexure A/1 verdict dated 27.02.2020, making an indepth study as to the facts, figures and the relevant provisions of law and precedents. Specific observations were also made by this Court with regard to the difference in the nomenclature between two posts which exist in the AIIMS, Raipur and which exist in the AIIMS, New Delhi and as to the eligibility to get the salary in terms of similar post as being paid in New Delhi. The mistake occurred in the advertisement and the subsequent 'undertaking' given by the Petitioners to have the pay fixed in terms of offer of appointment order; notwithstanding the contents of the advertisement, and the relevant precedents were also referred to therein. The factual position as to the higher pedestal occupied by the Review Petitioner, having higher qualification of Doctorate degree and as to the existing employment serving elsewhere (who resigned the post and joined pursuant to the advertisement and selection) were also adverted to. It was accordingly that, an order was passed that the matter required a fresh look in the light of the observations therein; in turn directing the Competent Authority to consider the factual aspects with reference to similar post of Assistant Professor (Nursing), if it exists in the New Delhi (to which the Respondents/Applicants have been appointed as per Annexure R/4) and to pass a "speaking order" after affording an opportunity of hearing to the persons concerned. The said verdict is now sought to be reviewed by the review Petitioner, who was a Respondent in the writ petition (Applicant in the OA); particularly against the observation made in paragraph 31 referring to the contents of the advertisement and also the offer of appointment.