G S TAWARMALANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RELIEFS sought in this O.A. by the applicant (Shri G.S. Tawarmalani) are as below:

(2.) During the oral submissions, the applicant was personally present while the respondents were represented by Mr. Madhav Panikar, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel.

(3.) FURTHER, the applicant had held regular additional charge of DG (W) during November, 1996, on the incumbent's vacating the position permanently. It was a regular charge held in terms of Ministry's orders dated 29.10.1996 and 31.10.1996 and the applicant was not, during this period, discharging current duties of DG, as he had done earlier in 1995. Therefore, in respect of the full additional charge of the post of DG (W) held by him, provisions of FR-49 (i) came into play and he was entitled to get the higher salary of DG (W). His earlier representations on this aspect did not evoke any reply, but in the impugned letter dated 18.10.2002, this plea is also rejected stating that the relevant orders directing him to perform the duties of DG were issued with the approval only of Minister of State (UD) but that the approval of the ACC, the Competent Authority to make appointments to this post had not been taken. This was clearly malafide, according to the applicant, as he had never been informed of this alleged lacuna. In fact, he pleads that ACC's approval was required only for making regular appointments and not for directing anyone to hold additional charge. This could have been given by the Administrative Ministry itself. Thus, the respondents made the applicant to discharge the full duties and responsibilities of the post of DG (W), without any restriction, but have denied his rightful claims for the remuneration for holding the charge, on the rather specious plea that the approval of the Competent Authority was not received, when no such clearance was really necessary. This action of the respondents was harsh, irregular and illegal.