Rajasthan High Court: Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. allowed the writ petition for the benefit of the Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) as no reference was made of such circular to show that the person can be deprived of such benefits.
A petition was made by the petitioner praying for the grant of Non-Practicing Allowances (NPA) and also challenged the order by which the earlier order of granting NPA was withdrawn.
The facts of the case were that petitioner was sent on deputation as Deputy Director (AIDS) in Rajasthan State AIDS Control Society. The petitioner pleaded that he must be granted NPA and thus requested the authorities and submitted a representation to the Project Director to grant him NPA. The petitioner further submitted that the Society held its meeting in which a conscious decision was taken to grant NPA to those working in other National programmes but the same was not paid to him. Thus, this application.
Abhay Bhandari, Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had to seek voluntary retirement which was accepted. It was further submitted that instead of granting him the actual benefit on the promoted post, the respondents had denied the actual benefit of the promotion to the petitioner only on account of the fact that the petitioner was promoted after he had sought voluntary retirement. The petitioner was also entitled to his fixation in the pay scale of Rs 10000-325-15200 on his promotion and only because the petitioner had sought voluntary retirement, the actual benefit could not have been denied to him.
Prakhar Gupta, Counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner was not entitled to grant of NPA. It was submitted that since the petitioner was not getting any NPA prior to his posting in the Rajasthan State AIDS Control Society and as such he could not be given such benefit. Counsel further submitted that the NPA could only be given to the persons who were entitled as per the order issued by the Finance Department from time to time. Counsel submitted that the claim of the petitioner for grant of pay scale of Rs 10000-325-15200 on the promoted post was also not justified as the petitioner had sought voluntary retirement and while considering his case for promotion, he was not working and as such notional benefit is only to be given to the petitioner.
High Court opined the petitioner has been promoted as Senior Medical Officer and a particular pay scale was required to be given to the person who was promoted on the regular basis, the same cannot be denied to him only on account of the fact that he had sought voluntary retirement. The court further held that as there was no clause which prescribed that a person who has been promoted on regular line of promotions, can be deprived from the pay scale of the higher post. Thus, the order was made to the respondent to pay the NPA along with the actual benefit of pay revision of promotion within five weeks.[Avdhesh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 686, decided on 20-05-2019]
