Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
P C Asokan vs Ordnance Factory Board on 11 October, 2024
1 O.A./310/00031/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00031/2020
Dated the 11th day of September Two Thousand Twenty-Four
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. Veena Kothavale, Member (J)
HON'BLE MR. Sisir Kumar Ratho, Member (A)
1. P.C. Asokan,
S/o. (Late) P.A. Chinnan,
Working as CPW SK (Per. No. 111184),
Cordite Factory, Aravankadu - 643 202,
Resident of Quarter No. 935/6, Type II Quarters,
C.F. Estate, Aravankadu, The Nilgiris,
Tamil Nadu - 643 202. ...Applicant
By Advocate M/S. K.M. Ramesh
Vs
1. Union of India Rep. by,
The Addl. Director General of
Ordnance Factories,
Ordnance Factory Board,
10A, S.K. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700 001.
2. The General Manager,
Cordite Factory,
Ministry of Defence,
Aravankadu - 643 202,
The Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu.
2 O.A./310/00031/2020
3. Senior Divisional Officer/ Labour Bureau,
Cordite Factory,
Ministry of Defence,
Government of India,
Aravankadu - 643 202,
The Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu. ...Respondents
By Advocate Mr. J Vasu
3 O.A./310/00031/2020
ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble MS. Veena Kothavale, Member (J)) This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:
"... may be pleased to set aside the Impugned Order No.34/LB/SEN/CFA/111184 dated 19.06.2019 issued by the 3rd Respondent and consequently direct the Respondents to grant re-designation to the post of CPW SS with effect from 01.01.2010 when his juniors were granted the said post; as CPW SK with effect from 11.01.2012; as CPW HS-II with effect from 11.01.2015 and as CPW HS-I with effect from 11.01.2018 by placing him in appropriate place in Serial No. 113 in CPW HS-I over and above his junior Mr. K. Ganesan (Per. No. 110825) with all consequential monetary and service benefits and pass such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case"
2. It is the case of the applicant that he was appointed as a Messenger on 10.04.1995 in the 2nd Respondent factory. He was redesignated as Labour Semi Skilled on 23.12.2007 and was re- designated as Chemical Process Worker Semi Skilled on 09.06.2014. He further submits that in the year 2007, he became an office-bearer of Cordite Factory Labour Union, which has been recognized as one of the spokesperson and collective bargaining agent of the workmen employed in Cordite Factory, Aravankadu. Due to his union activities, there was enmity between the Factory management and the Applicant and therefore, he is being victimized by denying him due promotion over the period of time. He further submits that he was among others 4 O.A./310/00031/2020 who were attacked by rival union office bearers on 07.01.2007 at Cordite Factory office premises and applicant had defended the attack. A criminal case came to be filed in Crime No. 8/2007 against 12 persons including the applicant in which Charge Sheet was filed in C.C. No. 77 of 2008 which is pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Coonoor. In addition, disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against the said 12 persons including the Applicant which came to be disposed of. Applicant has challenged the outcome of the said disciplinary proceeding before this Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 340/2015 and 1697/2017 which are pending. While similarly placed persons were accommodated for promotion with or without exemption from trade tests, the applicant has been singled out from promotion and not included in the promotion list. The applicant further submits that in order No. CG/16/CF/RE-DESIG dated 26.10.2007 applicant was redesignated as LAB US. Subsequently, applicant successfully completed trade test meant for transfer of Non- Industrial Establisment to Industrial Establishment as LAB US on 12.11.2007 and he became eligible for promotion. However, 2 nd respondent ignored the Applicant for promotion while promoting his junior Shri K. Ganesan to the post of LAB US vide order dated 21.12.2007 and the said K. Ganeshan was further promoted to the post of CPW SS vide order dated 30.12.2009. After enormous delay and several 5 O.A./310/00031/2020 representations, the respondents gave notional transfer to applicant to Industrial Establishment as LAB SS vide order dated 14.07.2011 with retrospective effect from 23.12.2007. While applicant was so promoted as CPW SS and fighting for his rights to be promoted, his junior Mr. K. Ganesan was further promoted as CPW HS II w.e.f. 11.01.2015. Subsequently, when applicant cleared another trade test for the post of CPW SK from CPW SS, the department kept the result under sealed cover without citing any reason vide order dated 23.06.2016. The applicant submitted a representation dated 05.08.2016. However, the respondents have not chosen to give any reply to the said representation. The applicant further submits that against Charge Memorandum dated 18.08.2014, an order No.1/DS/C/36/111184/14 dated 28.02.2018 was passed imposing a penalty of reduction of pay by two stages in level - 2 of the pay matrix (7 th CPC) for the period of one year without cumulative effect on 28.02.2018 and the same was completed on 27.02.2019. After completion of penalty period, applicant requested for normalization and re-designation to the post of CPW HS- I and to place him at Serial No. 113 of the Seniority list in the place of Mr. K. Ganesan. However, second respondent issued final seniority list N0.34/LB/SEN/CFA dated 15.05.2019 in which applicant was placed as CPW SS in Sl. No.3 instead of placing him at Sl. No. 113 as CPW HS I. The applicant give a representation dated 28.05.2019 seeking re-
6 O.A./310/00031/2020 designation in the seniority list. However, the second respondent vide impugned order No.34/LB/SEN/CFA/111184 dated 19.06.2019 rejected the claim of the applicant and issued final seniority list as on 01.01.2019 vide impugned order No.34/LB/SEN/CFA/111184 dated 25.06.2019. Therefore, he claims that he has no other option but to file this O.A. for seeking aforestated relief.
3. On issuance of notice, the respondents have appeared and filed their reply stating that the applicant herein was appointed in the Cordite Factory Aruvankadu on 10.04.1995 as a Messenger Boy, on compassionate grounds. On 01.03.2005, the applicant was re- designated from 'Messenger Boy to the post of 'Orderly' in the identical pay scale, as he attained the age of 18 years. With Factory Order Pt.11 No. 862 dated 14.07.2011, the applicant was transferred/ re- designated from Non-Industrial to Industrial Establishment as Labourer SS' in the Pay Band of Rs. 5200- 20200/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 1800/- notionally w.e.f. 23.12.2007. Though the Factory Order for re-designation was issued on 14.07.2011, the applicant was granted re-designation from 23.12.2007 notionally. The reason for the same was the chequered disciplinary history of the applicant, as enumerated below:
7 O.A./310/00031/2020
(a) with Order dated 18.12.2006, the applicant was imposed with the penalty of reduction of pay to the minimum of scale from Rs. 3080/- to Rs. 2550/- for a period of one year with cumulative effect, on charges of misbehaving with a female staff and unauthorisedly entering the Central Registry (one of the sections of the 2 respondent factory);
(b) with Order dated 31.07.2008, the applicant was imposed with the penalty of reduction of pay by two stages from Rs. 3080/- to Rs. 2960/- for a period of one year with cumulative effect for several misconducts as forming an unlawful assembly in front of the Admin Block by missing from the workspot, forcefully entering the General Manager Secretariat, indulging in physical assault on some of the co- workers/ employees, etc;
(c) with order dated 17.01.2012, the applicant was imposed with the penalty of CENSURE for violating the Gate discipline by going out of the Factory Main Gate without permission;
(d) with order dated 28.02.2013, the applicant was imposed with the penalty of CENSURE on charges of wilful insubordination to reasonable orders of the superiors and negligence of duty;
(e) with order dated 28.12.2013, the applicant was imposed with the penalty of reduction of pay by one stage from Rs. 6860/- to Rs. 6600/- for a period of one year, on charges of unauthorisedly leaving the Factory and deserting the work place;
8 O.A./310/00031/2020
(f) with Order dated 18.04.2018, the applicant was imposed with the penalty of reduction of pay by two stages for a period of two years with the effect of that reduction in delaying his future increments of pay. The proceedings were initiated with Charge memo dated 18.08.2014, on charges of attending criminal Court proceedings while on duty; In the wake of the penalties imposed on the applicant, he was not re- designated to the post of Labourer SS on 23.12.2007 itself. As the applicant was under the currency of penalty and as per rules/ Govt. instructions, during the period when an employee was under the currency of penalty, he could not be redesignated. Whereas, another incumbent of the same post, namely, Shri K. Ganesan, was re- designated to the post of Labourer SS wef 23.12.2007. Later, on completion of currency of penalty due to the penalties imposed on the applicant, he was also redesignated to post of Labourer SS' with Factory Order dated 14.07.2011. In other words, the applicant was redesignated to Labourer SS'post wef 14.07.2011, but notionally wef 23.12.2007. Thereafter, the applicant was redesignated again to CPW SS' wef 09.06.2014 and was then promoted to the post of CPW Sk wef 28.02.2019, the post which he is holding at present. Since the applicant was re-designated in the pos tof CPW SS wef 09.06.2014, he was not granted CPW Sk' promotion due to the pendency of a disciplinary case. The applicant was imposed with a penalty of 9 O.A./310/00031/2020 reduction of pay by two stages for one w.ef. 28.02.2018. The currency of penalty was completed on 27.02.2019 and hence his case was considered for promotion to the post of CPW Sk wef 28.02.2019. In view of the foregoing, the applicant's representation dated 28.05.2019 was turned down giving reply thereto on these lines. The applicant is assailing the same in this O.A. and prays for dismissal of O.A.
4. Heard both counsels and perused the records.
5. The counsel for applicant submits that the 3 rd respondent ought to have considered that penalty imposed on the applicant is without cumulative effect and on his completion of penalty period on 27.02.2019, the applicant was entitled to be redesignated and promoted as CPW HS I and the seniority list ought to have been revised showing the name of applicat at S.No. 113 in the list of CPW HS I seniority. The applicant has been victimized on flimsy and perverse ground and the seniority list is not maintainable either in law or in facts. Discrimination meeted out the applicant is illegal and the impugned order therefore is liable to be set aside and the applicant be given his due seniority.
6. Per Contra, Learned Counsel for respondents has drawn our attention to a comparative chart giving a clear picture of respective postitions of the applicant vis-a-vis Shri Ganeshan which is as under:
10 O.A./310/00031/2020 Particulars/events In r/o The applicant In r/o Shri Ganesan Initial Appointment As Messenger Boy, wef As Orderly wef 24.03.2001 10.04.1995 Re-designation to w.e.f. 01.03.2005 already in Orderly post Orderly Redesignation to With Factory Order dtd. wef 23.12.2007 Labour SS' 14.07.2011 (wef 23.12.2007 notionally) Redesignation to CPW wef 09.06.2014 wef 31.12.2009 SS' Promotion to CPW Sk' wef 28.02.2019 wef 11.01.2012 The learned counsel further submits that it is clear from the above table that, as on 23.12.2007, Shri Ganesan was redesignated to the post of Labourer SS', whereas, the applicant could be granted redesignation to the Labour SS' post only on 14.07.2011 notionally wef 23.12.2007, as he was under the currency of penalty. Subsequently, the applicant was re-designated to CPW SS wef 09.06.2014, whereas, Shri Ganesan was re-designated to CPW SS' wef 31.12.2009 itself.
Further, the applicant was later promoted as CPW SK wef 28.02.2019 whereas Shri Ganesan was promoted to CPW SK wef 11.01.2012 itself. Therefore, the counsel submits that the applicants' demand for advancing the date of his redesignation from Orderly to Labour SS' and advancing of date of consequent redesignation/promotion, comparing his case with that of Shri Ganesan is not reasonable and hence could not be acceded to. Accordingly, the impugned order was issued by the respondents which is justiciable and seeks for dismissal of this O.A. 11 O.A./310/00031/2020
7. On persual of the records, it is seen that vide order dated 21.12.2007, Shri K.Ganeshan was transferred on appointment as LAB US from non-industrial to industrial establishment w.e.f. 23.12.2007 (Annexure A-3) whereas, the applicant, though had passed trade test for LAB US on 12.11.2007, was not given such appointment due to disciplinary proceedings and penalties imposed against him. However, the applicant did not challenge the said order. Further, as per Annexure A-5, applicant was transferred/redesignated from non- industrial to industrial establishment as LAB SS (erstwhile LAB US) nearly after four years on 14.07.2011, notionally w.e.f. 23.12.2007. This order also goes unchallenged by the applicant. The applicant, having accepted his supersession by other persons without any demur, cannot be allowed to question the seniority after almost 17 years. The applicant has admitted this position in his own representation dated 05.08.2016 at Annexure A-13.
8. It is further seen that while Shir K. Ganeshan passed trade test for CPW SS on 30.12.2009 (Annexure- A-4) and redesignated to CPW SS w.e.f. 31.12.2009, the applicant has passed trade test for CPW SS only on 06.06.2014 and redesignated to CPW SS w.e.f. 06.06.2014. Shri K. Ganeshan and others whom the applicant claims to be his juniors have been promotted from CPW skilled to CPW HS II w.e.f. 11.01.2015, whereas, in respect of trade test conducted for CPW SK on 12 O.A./310/00031/2020 07.06.2016, result of applicant was kept under sealed cover. Shri K. Ganeshan has been redesignated to CPW HS I w.e.f. 11.01.2018, the applicant has been promoted to CPW SK only w.e.f. 28.02.2019. Therefore, having kept mum all these years, the applicant cannot now compare his seniority with that of Shri K. Ganeshan as much water has flown under the bridge.
9. The applicant claims in his application that he has challenged the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings before this Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 340 of 2015 and 1697 of 2017. However, it is seen that even after lapse of 9 years, he has not pursued with these cases and allowed the charges as well as the imposition of penalties against him remain unsettled and undecided. Since his promotion was delayed due to spate of disciplinary proceedings and penalties imposed on him, he has to first get over those adverse orders. Instead of pursuing with pending O.As, he has filed yet another O.A. praying for retrospective promotion and seniority over Shri K. Ganeshan which is untenable. Further, his claim that persons similarly charaged in the said criminal charge have been given promotion is also not tenable as Annexure A-6 discloses that the promotion is effected in continuation of the order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 157 of 2010. Nothing prevented the applicant from challenging the promotion of his juniors at the relevant point of time and getting an appropriate order in his favor.
13 O.A./310/00031/2020
10. In view of the above observations, the relief sought by the applicant in this O.A. is devoid of any merit. Accordingly, O.A. is dismissed. No order as to cost.
(Sisir Kumar Ratho) (Veena Kothavale)
Member (A) Member (J)
11.09.2024
/PG/