ORDER
Abhay M. Naik, J.
1. This petition has been preferred for release of selection grade w.e.f. 1-12-1991 in pursuance of Annexure P-1.
2. Petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Grade-Ill (Ministerial) in the services of Food Corporation of India vide order dated 14-6-1996. Since then he has been continuing in service. He was granted selection grade vide order dated 8-1-1996 contained in Annexure P-l, w.e.f. 1-12-1991. This order was not given effect to and was kept in abeyance without intimation to the petitioner. A representation was made vide Annexure P-2 and actual benefits were demanded. The petitioner in response to his representation, received a Memo No. Estt. JBP/PF (37)/2000, dated 22-6-2000 marked as Annexure P-3 informing him that on account of his involvement in Criminal Case No. 27/87 registered against him on 24-7-87 by State Economic Crime Investigation Bureau, Bhopal and further on account of grant of sanction on 27-9-96 for issuing charge-sheet against him, he is not eligible for selection grade. The petitioner again made a representation which was forwarded by the District Manager, FCI, Jabalpur with recommendation on the ground that on the date of issuance of the order contained in Annexure P-1, the petitioner was not facing any criminal trial and the same has been initiated after about eight months from the date of issuance of Annexure P-l. This recommendation was ignored, hence, the writ petition.
3. It is contended by Shri Manoj Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is indisputably entitled to the selection grade which has already been sanctioned vide Annexure P-l, w.e.f. 1-12-1991. In view of it, the petitioner is entitled to actual benefits and neither the Criminal Case nor sanction for prosecution on 27-9-96 can be made a basis for denying the same.
4. Shri M.K. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the writ petition. Relying upon Regulation 86 of the Staff Regulations of FCI, 1971, it is contended by Shri Agrawal that the petitioner is not entitled to the selection grade as long as the Criminal Case is not decided in his favour. Reliance has also been placed on an unreported decision of this Court in W.P. No. 4309/2002 Shakil Kumar Sharma v. Zonal Manager (West), Food Corporation of India and Ors. decided on 14-12-2004.
5. Considered the submissions and perused the record.
6. Regulation 86 is reproduced below for the convenience:
86. Increments : Increments in the time-stale of a post to which a person is appointed shall be drawn as a matter of course except where such increments have been withheld as a result of a penalty imposed under these regulations. All increments shall fall due on the first of January of every year.
Shri Agrawal, learned Counsel for, the respondents admitted that no penalty has been imposed on the petitioner under the said regulations. Thus, the respondents cannot be held to be justified in withholding the selection grade in the absence of imposition of penalty under the regulations.
7. As regards the decision rendered by this Court in W.P. No. 4309/2002, it may be seen that the said decision is based on Para 4 (in), of the Scheme of 1985 for incentive increments. Para 4 (iii) of the Scheme of 1985 being relevant is reproduced below:
4. The following are the details of, the scheme for grant of incentive:
Eligibility:
All regular employees of the Corporation would be eligible for benefit under the Scheme subject to the following terms and conditions:
(iii) Employees involved in the vigilance cases or under suspension will not be eligible to get the benefit under this scheme till they are fully exonerated.
From the aforesaid, it is clear that the employees of FCI involved in Criminal Cases or under suspension were riot eligible to get the benefit under the scheme until they were exonerated. The petitioner in the present case is not claiming incentive increments under the said Scheme, In view of this, reliance on the said decision is without any substance.
8. It is apt to refer here the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India and Ors. v. K.V. Jankiraman and Ors. reported as . It has been clearly held that, “promotion etc. cannot be withheld merely because some disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against the employee. To deny the said benefit, they must be at the relevant time pending at the stage when charge-memo/charge-sheet has already been issued; to the employee.
Considering the case in hand on the aforesaid parameters, it may be “seen that the petitioner was given selection grade vide Annexure P-1, dated 8-1-1996 w.e.f. 1-12-1991. Requisite sanction for prosecution of the petitioner was granted much thereafter, i.e., on 27-9-96. Thus, when selection grade was granted to the petitioner he was not even liable to be prosecuted for want of requisite sanction and no case can be said to be pending against the petitioner during the period of eight months w.e.f. the date of grant of selection grade as rightly observed by District Manager, FCI vide Annexure P-5.
In the aforesaid view of the matter, action of withholding of the actual benefits of the selection grade is found to be totally illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. The petitioner is entitled to the actual benefits of the selection grade pursuant to Annexure P-l. The same be paid to the petitioner with interest @ 6% per annum.
Petition is accordingly allowed with cost quantified at Rs. 2000/-, if already certified.