Administrative benefits cannot be withdrawn without cogent evidence and transparent re-verification of eligibility.

The applicants were engaged by NDMC as Temporary Master Roll (TMR) workers against Class IV posts. Under NDMC’s Circular/Resolution dated 31.03.2014, TMR/contractual workers who had completed at least 500 days of service as on 31.01.2014 were to be considered for Regular Master Roll (RMR) status.

After verification, the applicants were granted RMR status by office order dated 04.07.2014 and were thereafter posted, transferred and treated administratively as RMR employees, including through issuance of identity cards.

NDMC subsequently withdrew the RMR status of 27 candidates, including the applicants, by office order dated 12.03.2015, alleging that they had not completed 500 days of TMR service. The applicants challenged the action in OA No. 1479/2015.

On 24.02.2023, the Tribunal directed NDMC to re-verify their service in accordance with the principles applied in Chander Bhan Singh v. NDMC, OA No. 3684/2016.

Pursuant to the Tribunal’s directions, NDMC sought further particulars and documents from the applicants and thereafter passed a speaking order dated 11.04.2024.

The applicants challenged that order, contending that the re-verification was defective, that NDMC had taken inconsistent positions regarding the availability and authenticity of the records, and that the speaking order recorded 39 days of service despite an earlier record allegedly reflecting “NIL” working days.

1. Whether NDMC’s speaking order dated 11.04.2024, withdrawing or denying the applicants’ RMR status, was based on a fair, objective and legally sustainable re-verification of their TMR service records?

2. Whether NDMC could depart from its earlier determination granting RMR status without disclosing cogent material and a rational basis for treating the earlier verification as erroneous?

3. Whether the applicants’ continuing engagement could be discontinued merely because of the dispute concerning computation of their earlier TMR service?

4. Whether completion of 500 days of service automatically entitled the applicants to RMR status?

The Tribunal applied the principles of administrative fairness, natural justice, non-arbitrariness and reasoned decision-making under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, holding that withdrawal of an earlier administrative benefit having adverse civil consequences must be supported by cogent and reliable material and a rational explanation for departure from the earlier decision.

It recognised that an authority may correct an erroneous administrative benefit and that an erroneous or fraudulent grant cannot be perpetuated; however, the authority must first demonstrate through identifiable and reliable evidence that the original decision was in fact erroneous.

The Tribunal relied upon the earlier order in Chander Bhan Singh v. NDMC, which illustrated that an initial assessment of working days could require correction after scrutiny of underlying payment and service records.

It also applied the directions issued in OA No. 1479/2015 requiring meaningful re-verification rather than a mere reiteration of the 2015 conclusion.

The Tribunal found material inconsistencies in NDMC’s position concerning the availability, authenticity and assessment of the relevant records.

NDMC simultaneously alleged that the applicants’ documents were forged or fabricated and blamed them for not producing documents which were, by their nature, ordinarily maintained by NDMC, including attendance registers, master-roll records, posting orders, bills and payment vouchers.

The Tribunal held that the decisive calculation of service days had to be traceable to identifiable underlying records.

The discrepancy between an alleged “NIL” entry and the speaking order’s finding of 39 days was not adequately explained, and NDMC did not sufficiently identify the source or method of calculation.

The applicants’ posting, transfer and treatment as RMR employees did not conclusively prove completion of 500 days, but these circumstances were relevant contemporaneous material that NDMC was required to consider.

Accordingly, the speaking order did not demonstrate a genuine, transparent and objectively verifiable re-verification as required by the earlier Tribunal order.

Since the applicants were continuing in service, the Tribunal considered it unjustified to terminate their present engagement merely because their past service computation remained disputed.

NDMC was directed to undertake a fresh, objective and transparent verification of the applicants’ service, particularly their past service, using the relevant official records and identifiable alternative contemporaneous material where necessary.

The applicants’ continuing engagement was protected, and NDMC was directed not to discontinue it merely because of the pending dispute or the applicants’ institution of the OAs.

Upon completion of the requisite 500 days, the applicants’ cases were to be considered for RMR status in accordance with the applicable policy and subject to all other eligibility conditions; completion of 500 days alone would not confer RMR status automatically.

The connected Original Applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.