Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Sukhbir Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 15 July, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-36/2011
New Delhi this the 15th day of July, 2011.
Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J)
Honble Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A)
Sh. Sukhbir Singh,
S/o sh. Rattan Singh,
R/o Vill. Belot, The. Bahadurgarh,
Distt. Jhajjar(Haryana). . Applicant
(through Sh. Yogesh Sharma, Advocate)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
through the Chief Secretary,
New Secretariat, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
2. The Secretary (Services),
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
New Secretariat, New Delhi.
3. The Directorate General,
Civil Defence and Home Guard,
Nishkam Sewa Bhawan,
CTI, Raja Garden, New Delhi. . Respondents
(through Sh. N.K. Rohtagi for Sh. Vijay Pandita, Advocate)
O R D E R
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) This application is directed against the inaction of the respondent authorities in granting him, in time, either promotion to the next higher grade or the benefit of ACP Scheme according to his eligibility. His prayer is for a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of Grade-III, DASS/UDC w.e.f. 05.12.2000, the date on which his juniors were promoted and further to quash the stand of the respondents communicated in their letter dated 30.10.2009 (A/4) by which his request for grant of benefit of ACP was rejected on the ground of non-clearance of his name from vigilance angle and further to direct the respondents to grant him increments during the period of his suspension.
2. The applicant was originally appointed on 15.09.1989 as a Group-C employee of Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation (DSMDC). On being declared surplus, he was re-deployed on 04.12.1992 as LDC (Grade-IV DASS) in Govt. of NCT of Delhi. His seniority in that grade was at Serial No.11723J. He was due for promotion to the rank of Grade-II DASS during 2000 but because of administrative failure in not making his ACR dossier available to the DPC, he was left out and his juniors were promoted to the higher grade. He claimed promotion, alternatively financial benefits under ACP Scheme and made many representations but nothing was granted to him for no fault of his. On 28.06.2006 he was arrested by the CBI in respect of a scam involving a housing society and was released on bail on 24.08.2006. According to him, the investigation in that case is still continuing and no charges have been framed against him. It is his contention that one Rakesh Kumar Hassen who was involved in the same case has been granted the benefit of the ACP Scheme but the claim of the applicant has been unfairly denied.
3. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents concedes that the applicant does not press his claim for grant of ACP benefits. His case is confined to the prayer for giving him promotional benefits with effect from the date his juniors got the promotion to Grade-III DASS in the year 2000. It is the case of the applicant that he could not have been denied the promotional benefits on account of administrative laches in forwarding his ACR dossiers to the DPC. Learned counsel places reliance on the judgment and order of this Tribunal in OA-2111/2010 in which the respondent authorities were directed to hold a review DPC in respect of candidate whose case was not considered by the DPC due to an unfounded complaint. As far as the present applicant is concerned, he argues that there were no complaints which were pending for enquiry at the time when DPC was held in the year 2000.
4. It is stated by the respondents that the name of the applicant came in the consideration zone for promotion in the year 2000 and his service particulars were called from the administrative department concerned. As the particulars could not be made available by the administrative department his name could not be considered by the DPC held on 24.10.2000 and an employee junior to the applicant was given promotion to Grade-III DASS on 05.12.2000. However, by the time his service particulars were got completed, he was unfortunately placed under suspension on 28.06.2006 which was revoked on 26.05.2010. They have made an averment that the ACR folder of the applicant upto 2009 is now available. However, neither promotion nor ACP benefits could be granted to the applicant as he has not been cleared from vigilance angle in view of the pending criminal case against him.
5. The undisputed fact is that there was no criminal case against the applicant as on 24.10.2000 when the DPC was held for promotion to the higher grade. The respondents have also not contested the averment that no charges have been framed against the applicant in the criminal case brought against him. There was no justification to withhold the promotion of the applicant because of administrative laches. Therefore, it is a fit case for holding review DPC in respect of the application to consider his suitability for promotion to the rank of U.D.C. w.e.f. 05.12.2000 when admittedly his junior was promoted. We, therefore, direct the respondents to hold the review DPC within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. As regards the claim for grant of increments during suspension period, it may be stated that such a claim is not supported by law.
7. The O.A. is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid direction. No costs.
(Dr. A.K. Mishra) (Mrs. Meera Chhibber) Member (A) Member (J) /vv/