Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ashutosh Giri vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 13 September, 2021
1
Item No. 5 O.A. No. 1984/2021
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No. 1984/2021
This the 13th day of September, 2021
Through Video Conferencing
Hon'ble Ms. Manjula Das, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
1. Ashutosh Giri
S/o Late Brija Giri,
27/429, ESIC Nagar,
Andheri West, Mumbai,
Maharashtra- 400053,
[email protected]
Presently Working As:
Deputy Director [Adhoc],
ESIC Regional Office, NM Joshi Marg,
Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013
2. Surya Prakash Pandey,
S/o Phool Chandra Pandey,
R/o Flat No. 7, ESIC Colony, Sector 56, Noida,
Uttar Pradesh- 201301,
[email protected]
Presently Working As:
Deputy Director [Adhoc],
ESIC Hospital, Basaidarpur,
Ring Road, Block W, Basai Darapur,
Bali Nagar, New Delhi, Delhi- 110015
3. Rajeev Kumar
S/o Rajendra Prasad,
R/o 78, 3rd Cross, RMHBCS Layout,
Opposite- Ramakrishna Nagar Park,
Nandini Layout, Bengaluru- 560096,
[email protected]
2
Item No. 5 O.A. No. 1984/2021
Presently Working As:
Deputy Director [Adhoc],
ESIC Hospital, Peenya, Bengaluru
4. Rajesh Joshi
S/o Harish Chandra Joshi,
R/o 48/4 Teg Bahudar Road, Lane No. 4,
Dalanwala, Dehradun, Uttarakhand- 248001
[email protected]
Presently Working As:
Deputy Director [Adhoc],
ESIC Regional Office, Prem Nagar
Dehradun, Uttarakhand- 248007
...Applicants
(By Advocate: Sh. Gautam Narain with
Sh. Prateek Dhanda)
Versus
1. Employees' State Insurance Corporation,
Through its Director General,
Panchdeep Bhawan,
Comrade Indrajeet Gupta Marg,
New Delhi- 110002
[email protected]
2. Union of India
Ministry of Labour & Employment,
Through its Secretary,
Shram Shakti Bhawan
Rafi Marg, New Delhi- 110001
[email protected]
3. Union Public Service Commission,
Through its Chairman,
Dholpur House,
Shahjahan Road, New Delhi- 110069
[email protected]
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Sh. Sanjeev Yadav, Sh. V.K.Singh and
Sh. Naresh Kaushik)
3
Item No. 5 O.A. No. 1984/2021
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Ms. Manjula Das, Chairman The applicants at present are officiating on the post of Deputy Director on ad hoc basis. They submit that they are eligible to be promoted to the post of Deputy Director on regular basis, and that there are clear-cut vacancies in the promotion quota. They also placed on record a calculation sheet showcasing the vacancies for the vacancy years 2017-18 to 2021-22 in the promotion quota along with various circulars issued by the respondents from time to time as regards retirement.
2. Vide OM dated 08.09.1998, DOP&T issued a Model Calendar for DPCs which inter alia provided for a time schedule to be followed by various departments. Thereafter, it came to notice of DOP&T that various Ministries/Departments were not following the Model Calendar, therefore, they issued OM dated 14.12.2000 to strictly comply with the instructions so as to achieve the desired objectives of timely convening of DPCs/preparation of approved select panels, within the prescribed time-frame. 4 Item No. 5 O.A. No. 1984/2021 Vide OM dated 11.03.2011 DOP&T specifically noted that delay in holding DPCs has an adverse effect on manpower planning and impedes the career progression of the employees.
3. According to the learned counsel for the applicants, the applicants were initially appointed to the post of Assistant Director on ad hoc basis, and were regularized w.e.f. 21.10.2011. Thereafter on 04.09.2015 all the applicants were promoted to the post of Deputy Director on ad hoc basis even though they were eligible for promotion on regular basis.
4. Applicants preferred their representations dated 23.08.2021 and 25.08.2021 requesting the respondents to convene DPC for the vacancy years 2017-18 to 2020-21 for their regularization on the post of Deputy Director.
5. Learned counsel for applicants has relied on following judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi wherein under similar facts and circumstances the holding of regular DPCs has been emphasized:
5Item No. 5 O.A. No. 1984/2021
(a) Dr. Sahadev Singh vs. Union of India & ors.
decided on 28.02.2012 in WP (C) No.5549/2007
(b) V.K.Jain vs. Union of India, decided on 03.05.2012 in WP (C) No.561/2003
(c) Dr. Ramakant Singh vs. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 4828.
6. We have considered the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi mentioned hereinabove and are of the considered view that this OA can be disposed of by directing the respondents to dispose of the representations of the applicants by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The decision so taken by the respondents shall be conveyed to the applicants. Liberty is also granted to the applicants to approach this Tribunal, if they are not satisfied with the decision of the authority. Applicants shall take steps for serving the copy of this order along with the OA to respondents No.1 & 2 by DASTI as well as serving a copy of this order to the learned counsel for respondents. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 i.e. UPSC submits that there is no role on the part of UPSC. 6 Item No. 5 O.A. No. 1984/2021 However, the UPSC has been arrayed through Chairman instead of Secretary. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
7. All pending MAs stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Mohd. Jamshed) (Manjula Das) Member (A) Chairman September 13, 2021 /sd/vb/