Non-Practising Allowance is restricted to veterinary posts satisfying prescribed clinical-service conditions.

The applicants were Technical Officers/T-5 serving at the ICAR–National Research Centre on Pig, Guwahati. Each possessed a B.V.Sc. and Animal Husbandry degree, relevant M.V.Sc. qualifications, and registration with the Assam Veterinary Council. They had initially been appointed to T-3 technical posts and were subsequently promoted to T-4 and T-5 positions.

The applicants claimed Non-Practising Allowance (NPA) under the Ministry of Finance Office Memorandum dated 07.07.2017. NPA was approved for applicants 1 and 2 from the dates on which they assumed the post of Technical Officer, while applicant 3 was granted provisional administrative approval for NPA from August 2023.

By Memorandum dated 24.01.2024, ICAR discontinued and kept the applicants’ NPA in abeyance. Their representations dated 28.02.2024 were rejected by communication dated 27.03.2024.

The respondents maintained that the applicants’ posts were not clinical posts, that B.V.Sc. was not the exclusive minimum qualification for the posts, and that the applicants’ duties remained substantially the same as those attached to their original T-3 posts.

1. Whether the applicants were entitled to continuation of NPA under the Ministry of Finance O.M. dated 07.07.2017, despite the nature of their posts and duties at ICAR?

2. Whether ICAR’s decision dated 24.01.2024 to discontinue or keep the applicants’ NPA in abeyance, followed by rejection of their representations, was illegal or unsustainable?

3. Whether the applicants’ possession of B.V.Sc. qualifications and registration with the Veterinary Council, by itself, established eligibility for NPA?

The Tribunal applied the Ministry of Finance O.M. dated 30.08.2008, which restricted NPA to veterinary posts for which a B.V.Sc. and Animal Husbandry degree, along with registration with the Veterinary Council of India, was the minimum qualification.

The same restriction was reiterated in the Ministry of Finance O.M. dated 07.07.2017, which further required the relevant conditions for NPA, including that the post be clinical, whole-time, involve sufficient scope for private practice, and require prohibition of private practice in the public interest.

The Tribunal also considered the ICAR conditions incorporated through its O.M. dated 10.10.1994, including the prescribed pay level, veterinary qualification and registration, and the requirement that the post relate to specified technical, field, educational, research or research-management functions in veterinary science.

It relied on Dr. Bhim Sen Behera v. Union of India & Ors., O.A. No. 3062/2017, CAT Principal Bench, order dated 31.07.2019, which held that O.M. dated 07.07.2017 had universal application to posts carrying NPA and that all stipulated conditions, including the clinical nature of the post, had to be satisfied.

The Tribunal found that the applicants’ original recruitment advertisement for the T-3 Farm Assistant post prescribed a B.V.Sc. and Animal Husbandry degree as an essential qualification, with pig-farm or slaughterhouse experience as desirable.

However, it held that possession of the veterinary degree and registration did not by itself confer entitlement to NPA. Eligibility depended on whether the post satisfied the additional requirements under the 2008 and 2017 O.M.s, particularly the requirement that it be a clinical veterinary post.

The applicants’ posts at the ICAR pig research centre were not shown to involve clinical duties, and their duties and qualification requirements were stated to remain substantially unchanged after promotion to T-5.

Following the reasoning in Dr. Bhim Sen Behera, the Tribunal held that ICAR was entitled to review earlier provisional payments against the conditions introduced or reiterated by the 07.07.2017 O.M. The applicants’ undertakings to refund excess payments further supported the respondents’ action.

Accordingly, discontinuance of NPA was treated as compliance with the governing instructions rather than an unlawful withdrawal of an accrued benefit.

The challenge to the Memorandum dated 24.01.2024 and the communication dated 27.03.2024 was rejected. The Original Application was dismissed, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.