Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Neeraj Prasad vs Defence Production on 9 December, 2024
1
item 39 OA No.378/2024
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
New Delhi
OA No.378/2024
MA No.402/2024
MA No.715/2024
This the 9th day of December, 2024
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member(A)
1. Neeraj Prasad
S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad
Aged About 41 years,
R/o Malviya Nagar, Jaipur
Rajasthan-302017.
2. Rakesh Kumar
S/o Shri Harpal Singh
Aged about 43 years
R/o Near Shiv Mandir, VPO, Bapora
Bapora(24), Bhiwani, Bapora,
Haryana-127111.
3. Santosh Babaji Zaware
S/o Shri Babaji Zaware
Aged about 47 years
R/o Flat No.11, Building No. C-1C
Giridhar Nagar, Opp. Mai Mangeshkar Hospital
Warje Pune City, Warje Pune
Maharashtra-411058
4. Sundar Rao
S/o Shri Ragiha,
Aged about 49 years
R/o Plot 1C, Vasantham Nagar, Kovil Pathagai
Thirumullavaivoyal, Poonamalle
Tiruvallur, Tamil Nadu-600062.
2
item 39 OA No.378/2024
5. Yarraiahgari Nagi Reddy
S/o Shri Y Venkata Rami Reddy
Aged about 44 years R/o 4-88 Chennampalle,
OWK Mandal Banaganapalle,
Chennampalle, Kumool
Andhra Pradesh-518122.
6. Bipin Behari
S/o Shri Ghanshyam Rai
Aged about 44 years
R/o 152, Sadiq Nagar,
Near Janta Adarsh AndhVidyalyay,
Sadiq Nagar Sector-3,
Sadiq Nagar, South Delhi-110049
7. Tusar KantaPrusty
S/o Shri Braja Sundar Prusty
Aged about 43 years
R/o Jaganath Mandir,
Vill Barapad, PO Barapad Kapila Jaipur
Odisha-755004.
8. Jagdish Prasad Ahiwar
S/o Shri Dilli Prasad Ahirwar
Aged about 51 years
R/o H.NO.3 Tulsi Vihar,
Near Shanta Mata Mandir
AmkheraAdhartalJablpur,
Madhya Pradesh
Pin: 482004
9. Dingi Anand Kumar
S/o Shri D Venkata Rao
Aged about 41 years
R/o 51-8-44/3/2 Nakkavanipalem,
Vishakhapatnam
(Urban) Vishakhapatnam,
Andhra Pradesh-530013.
10. Banamali Behera
S/o Shri Dibakar Behera
3
item 39 OA No.378/2024
Aged about 43 years
R/o- Qtr No. C-4/102, DGQA,
Residential Complex Ghatkopar, (West),
Mumbai-40086.
11. Sunil Kumar
S/o Shri Jagat Singh
Aged about 46 years
R/o Ahrola, Chandpur,
Bijnor, Chandpur,
Uttar Pradesh-246725.
12. Tushar Jagannath Yeole
Aged about 49 years
S/o Shri Jagannath Yeole
Flat No B1-202, Munjaba Wasti,
Pune Maharashtra-411015
13. Rahul Kumar
S/o Shri Pratap Singh
Aged About 47 years,
R/o 72/181 Agrasain Vihar, Jansath Road,
New Mandi, Muzzaffarnagar,
Uttar Pradesh-251001.
14. Dusmant Kumar Mohapatra
S/o Shri Parsuram Mohapatra
Aged About 45 years,
R/o Flat No. 174, Block-G,
Nanakpura South Baugh,
South West, Delhi-110021. ...Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. Neeraj Prasad )
Versus
1. Union Of India
Through its Secretary Ministry of Defence
Department of Defence Production,
South Block, New Delhi-11001
2. The Director General
4
item 39 OA No.378/2024
O/o The Director General Quality
Assurance, Ministry of Defence,
1st Floor, 'B' Block, Defence Office Complex,
Africa Avenue, Sarojini Nagar Post,
New Delhi-110023. ..Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. Gyanendra Singh)
O R D E R (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, M(J) Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants draws our attention to the decision of this Tribunal in Randhir Kumar and Ors. Vs. UOI and others, OA No.2567/2023 dated 19.12.2023. The same is reproduced for ready reference:-
"Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. The applicants, who are directly recruited Senior Scientific Officers (SSO) Grade II, belong to the Directorate General of Quality Assurance Organization (DGQAO) under Department of Defence Production, Ministry of Defence.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the last DPC was held in 2020 and thereafter, for the last three years, no Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting has been held by the respondents. Aggrieved by this, the applicants have filed this O.A., since they are eligible for promotion to the said post.
4. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicants relies upon the O.M. dated 10.04.1989 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT), which 5 item 39 OA No.378/2024 has been amended from time to time. Paragraph 3.1 -
Part II of the guidelines relating to the 'frequency of meeting' indicates that the DPCs should be convened at regular annual intervals to draw panels, which could be utilised for making promotions against the vacancies occurring during the course of a year. In other words, the life of the panel is one year. For this purpose, it is essential for the appointing authorities concerned to initiate action to fill up the existing as well as anticipated vacancies well in advance of the expiry of the previous panel, by collecting relevant documents like APARs, integrity certificates, seniority list, etc. for placing before the DPC. DPCs should be convened every year, if necessary, on fixed date, i.e., 1st of April or May. However, in the middle of the paragraph, by way of amendment brought on 13.05.1995, it postulates as under:-
"Very often, action for holding DPC meeting is initiated after a vacancy has arisen. This results in undue delay in the filling up of the vacancy causing dissatisfaction among those who are eligible for promotion. It may be ensured that regular meetings of DPC are held every year for each category of posts so that an approved selectpanel is available in advance for making promotions against vacancies arising over a year."
Thus, it is the bounden duty of the respondents to convene the DPC every year and admittedly, it was not held for the last three years."
5. Mr. R S Rana, learned counsel for the respondents submits that a proposal for convening the DPC for considering the SSO Grade II for promotion as SSO Grade-I was submitted to Ministry of Defence. However, due to a stay order passed by the Tribunal in Ο.Α. No.3813/2022 All India DGQA Naval Engineers Association v. Union of India & others, the Ministry of Defence has returned the proposal with a direction to wait for the outcome of the scheduled court hearing and re- submit the case accordingly.
6item 39 OA No.378/2024
6. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that in terms of an order dated 01.08.2023 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No.1746/2021 Sher Singh Kakar v. Union of India & others, the respondentscould not hold the DPC earlier; and unless the O.As. referred to above are decided, they are unable to do so.
7. We have perused the order dated 01.08.2023 passed in M.A. No.2321/2023 in O.A. No.1746/2021. The applicants therein were initially appointed as Junior Scientific Officer (JSO) and subsequently, they were merged in the cadre of SSO Grade II. At a later point of time, de-merger of JSO & SSO Grade II was directed at the instance of DoPT and this de-merger was challenged in O.A. No.3813/2022. By the order dated 01.08.2023 in M.A. No.2321/2023 in O.Α. No.1746/2021, this Tribunal directed the respondents to go ahead with the DPC for consideration of the applicants therein as SSO Grade I, but the same shall be subject to the outcome of the said O.A. Therefore, this order will not come in the way of the respondents to hold DPC as argued by learned counsel for the respondents.
8. As far as O.A. No.3813/2022 is concerned, this Tribunal by order dated 24.02.2023 granted status quo regarding de-merger of the cadres of SSO Grade II and JSO. Accordingly, this order also would not come in the way of the respondents in holding the DPC in respect of the applicants herein.
9. In light of the above, the O.A. is allowed and the respondents are directed to hold the DPC in respect of the applicants herein immediately to consider their cases for promotion to the post of SSO Grade I, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. We also direct the respondents to prepare year-wise panels for promotion to the said post and accord consequential benefits to the applicants in accordance with law.
10. No order as to costs."
7item 39 OA No.378/2024
2. He submits that the applicants in the present OA are identical and similarly situated to the applicants in OA No.2567/2023. Like them, applicants are serving in the office of the respondents as Senior Scientific Officers (SSO) Grade-II in the Directorate General of Quality Assurance Organization (DGQAO). They have approached the Tribunal aggrieved that the department is not conducting the regular DPC. The applicants being fully eligible for the same pray for a direction to the respondents to hold regular DPC for their consideration for promotion to SSO Grade-I.
3. The applicants submit that after the directions in OA No.2567/2023, respondents have conducted a regular DPC and considered the applicants of the OA No.2567/2023, while the present applicants were ignored.
4. Counsel for the respondents, like the respondents in OA No.2567/2023 has placed reliance upon order dated 01.08.2023 in OA No.1746/2021. According to the respondents, it was the pendency of the OA No.1746/2021 and OA No.3813/2022 wherein interim direction of the status quo has been issued that the respondents were unable to hold the regular DPC.
8item 39 OA No.378/2024
5. This objection of the respondents has been considered in detail and ultimately direction was issued to the respondents to conduct the regular DPC, subject to outcome of OA No.1746/2021.
6. It is worth noting that the present applicants like applicant in OA No.2567/2023, are also serving in the SSO Grade-II since 2017 and have completed the requisite four years regular service. Hence, they are eligible for consideration for promotion as SSO Grade-I. Owing to the conflicting decisions of the respondents, of merger and then de-merger of two cadres, the DPC in the department was not being regularly conducted.
7. Counsel for respondents submits that the regular DPC for promotion from SSO Grade-II to SSO Grade-I has not been held because the seniority list is not prepared and respondents are awaiting the outcome of the aforesaid two Original Applications.
8. Countering the above submission of the respondents, learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicants in Randhir Kumar (supra), OA No.2567/2023 had approached the Tribunal and in these very circumstances, after the relief 9 item 39 OA No.378/2024 was granted by the Tribunal, the respondents have held the DPC thereby promoting the applicants in Randhir Singh (supra) case to the next grade of SSO Grade-I. Non publishing of the seniority list did not come in the way of the respondents in holding regular DPC in compliance of the directions in OA No.2567/2023.
9. The said DPC was conducted in March, 2024 wherein the cut off date was 01.01.2022. We also note that the situation as explained by the counsel for the respondents was the same in March, 2024. Under the same situation that is the pendency of the two Original Applications referred to by above, the respondents did hold the regular DPC and promoted those who were considered eligible.
10. In these circumstances, we don't see any reason why the present Original Application be allowed by issuing the similar directions as in Randhir Kumar(supra).
11. Given the above the present OA is disposed of with the following directions. Respondents are directed to hold the regular DPC for considering the applicants as per their eligibility for promotion from SSO Grade-II to SSO Grade-I as per law. 10 item 39 OA No.378/2024 The DPC be held within three months of the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. It is clarified that the promotion, if any, shall be subject to the outcome of the Nos.1746/2021 and 3813/2022.
12. OA is disposed of accordingly. Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi) Member(A) Member(J)