Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Malaya Kumar Nayak vs Naval Ship Repair Yard on 13 October, 2023
1
OA.No.170/586/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00586/2020
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SHRI RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
Malaya Kumar Nayak,
S/o Golak Prasad Nayak,
Aged about 39 years,
W/as T.No.12823-L
Dept: MEWRL (L&W) NSRY, Karwar, Naval Base,
Uttara Kannada District-581 308. ..Applicant.
(By Advocate Shri V.P. Kulkarni represents Shri Harish Kumar M.S)
Vs.
1.Admiral Superintendent,
(For Manager (P & A),
NSRY, Naval Base,
Karwar-581308.
2. Manager (P & A),
For Admiral Superintendent,
NSRY, Naval Base,
Karwar-581308. ....Respondents
(Shri Vishnu Bhat, Sr. Panel Counsel for Respondents)
O R D E R (ORAL)
PER: RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: 2
OA.No.170/586/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench
a) To quash the order dated 15.09.2020 bearing No. HAD/5283 issued by Respondent No.2 on behalf of Respondent No.1 (Annexure A-7), vide which the request of the applicant for promotion after counting his past service in Naval Dockyard, Mumbai as SK (Instrumental Fitter), has been rejected with the clarification that the earlier service period will be counted for pension, increment and leave etc., and not towards seniority and promotion.
b) Direct the respondents No 1 & 2 to promote the applicant to the post of HSK-II.
c) To grant any other relief which this Tribunal deems fit to meet the ends of justice.
2. The facts of the case as pleaded by the applicant in his pleadings, are as follows:
a) The Applicant was appointed as SK (Instrument Fitter) vide order dated 08.11.2005 on provisional basis against existing vacancy at Naval Dockyard, Mumbai. The Applicant was promoted to the post of HSK-II on 05.04.2014.
b) Subsequently, on 30.6.2017, based on the request of the applicant, he was transferred from Naval Dockyard, Mumbai to Naval Ship Repair Yard (NSRY), Karwar on compassionate grounds. This transfer had been sought in view of the fact that the wife of the petitioner was working in NSRY, Karwar. As per the transfer order, he was 3 OA.No.170/586/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench transferred with the lower grade as SKL (Control Fitter Instrument) in place of HSK-II (Control Fitter Instrument). The Applicant did not notice the same at the time of leaving. After noticing the same at Karwar, he wanted to approach the concerned authority to correct the same. He was told that the said correction will not be done immediately and it will take time. Since the Applicant had got the movement order with great difficulty, and he had to go to Karwar as his wife was working at NSRY, Karwar, he could not approach the concerned officer at Mumbai. The applicant has, however, decided to challenge the said order of demotion separately.
c) The Respondents in the year 2019, prepared the draft seniority list, where the Applicant has been placed at Sl.No.6 without considering the service rendered by the Applicant at Naval Dockyard at Mumbai.
d) As there was a proposal to consider the employees of SK (Instrument Fitter) for promotion to the post of HSK-II, the Applicant filed a representation dated 19.08.2019 requesting the concerned authority to consider his representation for promotion treating his service held at Naval Dockyard at Mumbai as Regular Service in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3792/2019.
Respondents No.1 and 2 rejected the representation of the applicant by order dated 04.11.2019, stating that the qualifying service for promotion shall be considered as per orders in vogue. 4
OA.No.170/586/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench
e) The applicant filed one more representation on 01.06.2020 requesting to consider his service rendered at Naval Dockyard, Mumbai in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3792/2019, and to give promotion during the DPC to be held in respect of the year 2019.
f) The Respondents after considering the representation filed by the Applicant, passed the order on 15.09.2020, wherein the prayer of the Applicant has been rejected on the ground that at the time of transfer from Mumbi to Karwar the Applicant himself had undertaken that he would not claim seniority on the basis of the service rendered by him at Mumbai, and in view of the affidavit the judgment relied upon by him is not applicable to the case on hand.
g) Hon'ble Supreme Court relying upon its own finding in the judgment passed in the case of Union of India & Ors Vs C.N. Ponnappan (1996) 1 SCC 524 had observed as follows:
"The service rendered by an employee at the place from where he was transferred on compassionate grounds is regular service. It is no different from the service rendered at the place where he is transferred. Both the periods are taken into account for the purpose of leave and retiral benefits. The fact that as a result of transfer he is placed at the bottom of the seniority list at the place of transfer does not wipe out his service at the place from where he was transferred. The said service, being regular service in the grade, has 5 OA.No.170/586/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench to be taken into for the purpose of eligibility for promotion and it cannot be ignored only on the ground that it was not rendered at the place where he has been transferred. In our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly held that the service held at the place from where the employee has been transferred has to be counted as experience for the purpose of eligibility for promotion at the place where he has been transferred."
h) At the time of transfer, the concerned officer had forced the applicant to submit such an affidavit as a precondition for transfer quoting that the law of the land demands such an affidavit. Therefore, the applicant was constrained to file the same. But now, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondents ought to have given an effect to the same.
i) The respondents have failed to note that in the case of one Sri M. Devadas, who had joined the service along with the applicant and also got the transfer on compassionate grounds, he has been considered for promotion within 9 months from the date of his transfer.
3. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have averred as follows:
a) The applicant was recruited by the Cadre Controller at Naval Dockyard, Mumbai as Tradesman Skilled (Control Instrument Fitter) on provisional basis with effect from 08.11.2005 vide their appointment order DYP/P/6370/EXAPP/12 dated 08.11.2005. 6
OA.No.170/586/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench Applicant was promoted to the grade of Tradesman Highly Skilled Grade-II w.e.f 05.04.2014. Applicant thereafter applied for transfer on 29.11.2016 on compassionate grounds to different geographical location under Cadre Controller, Naval Ship Repair Yard, Karwar. In his application, he had indicated willingness to accept fresh appointment on transfer to receiving unit in lower direct recruitment grade of Tradesman Skilled (Annexure R1). Applicant had further agreed that his past seniority in tradesman highly skilled grade II would not be counted for promotion and that he would not claim the same. Based on this application, the applicant was transferred to Cadre Controller, Naval Ship Repair Yard, Karwar w.e.f. 30.6.2017. On joining Karwar, applicant was accordingly demoted to lower direct recruitment grade of Tradesman Skilled and placed at bottom of seniority roster with zero seniority. This was not objected to by the Applicant at any point of time/ until representation/ query put up on 19.8.2019, i.e., after two years post roster settlement.
b) Applicant has averred that he was not aware of his demotion to lower direct recruitment grade of Tradesman Skilled. This is in direct contradiction to his application and undertaking, where the Applicant has explicitly expressed his willingness to move on demotion.
c) The prayer of the applicant has been rejected on grounds that transfers should not be prejudicial to the legitimate interest of anyone in the department to which the applicant was transferred, as there were five personnel senior to applicant already in the seniority roster. As the 7 OA.No.170/586/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench applicant had already availed his service as Tradesman Skilled for promotion to Tradesman Highly Skilled II on 05.04.2014 and then demoted on applicant's own request dated 27.06.2017, it was in the interest of justice that he had to start afresh his service period till that date when seniors in the promotion roster are not promoted.
d) The law with respect to grant of seniority to the person on compassionate transfer is no more res-integra and is well settled by catena of judgments of the Apex Court and Hon'ble Apex Court has held that seniority shall be from the date of joining and are enumerated in the succeeding paragraphs. There is a difference between years of service and position in seniority roster.
e) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3792/2019 quoted by the applicant as regards consideration of service in previous unit towards promotion is not disputed. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also approved the placement of individual at bottom of seniority roster in new Unit when transferred on Compassionate grounds.
f) The Apex Court has clearly laid down that the 'eligibility for 'promotion' cannot be confused with 'seniority', as the two are different and distinct factors. The applicant is trying to confuse 'Service' with 'Seniority'. Applicant has misinterpreted the ibid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court and has falsely represented for placement in seniority roster based on date of his recruitment as against joining date at Naval 8 OA.No.170/586/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench Ship Repair Yard, Karwar. Representation of the Applicant was accordingly addressed.
g) The claim of the applicant in the instant OA is untenable since, he has come on transfer to the present unit on his own request and his request was acceded on his undertaking that his past service in his previous unit would not be counted for purpose of seniority and the purpose of this undertaking/ restriction was that his transfer should not disturb the chances of promotion of those who were already working. The law is no more res-integra that his seniority shall be counted from the date he joined Naval Ship Repair Yard (Karwar) on 01.07.2017.
h) The period of service/ experience rendered by the applicant is not wiped out and has been counted, although he is placed at bottom of the seniority list at Naval Ship Repair Yard (Karwar).
i) The applicant was fully aware of the consequences and also executed an undertaking to this effect. It is once again re-iterated that the seniority of the applicant shall be counted from the day he joined Naval Ship Repair Yard (Karwar) ie 01.07.2017, since the law is no more res- integra.
j) The two concepts viz (i) 'eligibility' and (i) 'seniority' are quite distinct, different and independent of each other. A person may be eligible, fit or qualified to be considered for promotion. It does not however necessarily means that he must be treated as having requisite 'Seniority' for entry in the zone of consideration. Even, if he fulfils the first 9 OA.No.170/586/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench requirement, but does not come within the zone of consideration in the light of his position and placement in 'Seniority' and the second condition is not fulfilled, he cannot claim consideration merely on the basis of his eligibility and qualification.
k) There are a number of judgments rendered which reiterate the above point. The Honourable Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated 15.09.2008 of Union of India and ors Vs. Deo Narain and ors. has observed the following:-
(i) Two things, namely, (aa) eligibility, and (ab) seniority are quite different and distinct.
(ii) In view of the above fact and legal position, in our opinion, the contention of the appellants that placement of the respondents at the bottom of the seniority list in the transferee Collectorate was legal and valid is well founded and in consonance with the decision of the Central Government.
(iii) This Court considered conflicting views and held that the service rendered by an employee at one place could not be ignored or not counted for the purpose of promotion to another Unit even if such transfer is made on compassionate ground. He can be placed at the bottom of the seniority at the transferred place, but the experience obtained by him of rendering service in the first Department could not be ignored and must be considered as experience for promotion in the new unit also.
(iv) Even otherwise, in our considered opinion, the two concepts, viz.
(aa) 'eligibility' and (ab) 'seniority' are quite distinct, different and independent of each other. A person may be eligible, fit or qualified to be considered for promotion. It does not, however, 10 OA.No.170/586/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench necessarily mean that he must be treated as having requisite seniority' for entry in the zone of consideration. Even if he fulfils the first requirement, but does not come within the zone of consideration in the light of his position and placement in 'seniority' and the second conditions is not fulfilled, he cannot claim consideration merely on the basis of his eligibility or qualification.
(v) Finally, in Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri & Anr. v. V.M. Joseph, (1998) 5 SCC 305, again, a similar view has been taken by this Court. It was held that if the eligibility condition requires certain length of service, service rendered in another organization before unilateral transfer at own request cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority. But it must be counted for determining eligibility for promotion.
l) The Honourable Supreme Court of India in its judgment dated
16.10.2003 of Union Of India and anr. Vs. V.N. Bhat has observed the following:
(i) The well settled principle of law that even in the case where the transfer has been allowed on request, the concerned employee merely loses his seniority, but the same by itself would not lead to a conclusion that he should be deprived of the other benefits including his experience and eligibility for promotion.
(ii) Even in cases relating to request transfers, this Court has held, as seen above, that the past service will count for eligibility for certain purposes though it may not count for seniority.
m) The Andhra High Court in its judgment dated 20.11.2013 in A.V. Reddy vs. The APSRTC, Rep., has observed the following:- 11
OA.No.170/586/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench
(i) A person transferred to a new unit will take rank below the junior most in the category in the new unit or department. He will not be allowed to count his previous service towards seniority. Such transfers should not be prejudicial to the legitimate interest of anyone in the department to which he is transferred. But he may be allowed to count his previous service towards increment, leave, pension and gratuity.
(ii) Where a Government servant is so transferred on his own request, the transferred employee will have to forego his seniority till the date of transfer, and will be placed at the bottom below the junior-
most employee in the category in the new cadre or department. This is because a government servant getting transferred to another unit or department for his personal considerations, cannot be permitted to disturb the seniority of the employees in the department to which he is transferred, by claiming that his service in the department from which he has been transferred, should be taken into account. This is also because a person appointed to a particular post in a cadre, should know the strength of the cadre and prospects of promotion on the basis of the seniority list prepared for the cadre and any addition from outside would disturb such prospects.
(iii) The division Bench further held that even though seniority of an employee is reckoned as a junior-most employee at his transferred place on transfer made at his request, yet his service at the earlier 12 OA.No.170/586/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench place cannot be excluded from consideration for determining his eligibility for promotion.
(iv) If any employee is willing to relinquish the right of his seniority in the past held by him in the seniority Unit in which he is working and is willing to join on transfer in another seniority unit at his request, it shall be treated as a first appointment for transferred employee for the purpose of seniority and he will become junior most in the seniority unit to which transferred on request. His seniority shall be reckoned from the date of his joining on transfer in the later seniority unit.
(v) The Apex Court has clearly laid down that the eligibility for promotion cannot be confused with seniority as they are two different and distinct factors. The point at issue, thus, is squarely covered by the aforementioned decisions of the Apex Court in Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri (supra).
(vi) The service rendered by an employee at the place from where he was transferred on compassionate grounds is regular service. It is no different from the service rendered at the place where he is transferred. Both the periods are taken into account for the purpose of leave and retiral benefits. The fact that as a result of transfer he is placed at the bottom of the seniority list at the place of transfer does not wipe out his service at the place from where he was transferred. The said service, being regular service in the 13 OA.No.170/586/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench grade, has to be taken into account as part of his experience for the purpose of eligibility for promotion and it cannot be ignored only on the ground that it was not rendered at the place where he has been transferred. In our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly held that the service held at the place from where the employee has been transferred has to be counted as experience for the purpose of eligibility for promotion at the place where he has been transferred.
(vii) This Court in Union of India & Ors. v. C.N. Ponnappan, AIR 1996 SC 764, has held that, where an employee is transferred from one unit to another on compassionate ground and is placed at the bottom of the seniority list, the service rendered by him at the earlier place from where he has been transferred, being regular service, has to be counted towards experience and eligibility for promotion.
4. In his rejoinder to the reply, the applicant has pleaded as follows:
a) The averments made by the Respondent No.1 & 2 that the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA 3792/2019 support the principle that anyone being transferred, individuals provide an undertaking to join at zero seniority and at the bottom of roster in level of Direct Recruitment, is not correct. The statement made by the respondents that the Applicant in his application had indicated willingness to accept fresh appointment on transfer to the receiving unit in lower direct 14 OA.No.170/586/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench recruitment grade of Tradesman Skilled, is also not correct. The Applicant had given the undertaking only to place himself in the zero seniority of Highly Skilled Grade-II which he was having w.e.f.,
05.04.2014 and he continued to be in the said grade at the time of transfer. The said undertaking was taken by the authority under pressure but not under free will of the Applicant. Therefore, demoting the Applicant on joining at Karwar to the lower direct recruitment grade of Tradesman Skilled and placing at bottom of seniority roster with zero seniority is illegal.
b) In the case of transfer on compassionate ground, the contention of the respondents that seniority has to be reckoned from the date of his reporting to the duty on the transferred place is not at all binding to the parties. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent judgment passed in Civil Appeal No.3792/2019 has held that the service rendered by an employee at the place from where he was transferred on compassionate grounds is regular service and it is no different from the service rendered at the place where he is transferred. Therefore, the applicant is entitled for promotion by taking into consideration the service rendered by him from where he was transferred.
c) Since, even after allowing the application the position of the other five persons in the seniority list would not change they are not the necessary parties to the proceedings.
15
OA.No.170/586/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench
d) The Applicant has relied upon only on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which makes it very clear that a person who has been transferred from one region to another on compassionate ground should be considered for promotion in the transferred place considering his service in the previous region. Therefore, all the contentions urged by the Respondents against the said proposition would not stand and same have to be rejected.
e) If the contention of the Respondent No.1 & 2 that in the case of compassionate transfer, an employee would lose the seniority but his eligibility for promotion would remain same, were to be admitted, then the action of the Respondent No.1 & 2 of placing the Applicant in the lower grade on being transferred to Karwar i.e. HSK -II to Tradesman Skilled is illegal and erroneous and the same would show that there is no proper application of mind by the concerned authority.
f) Though he has been wrongly demoted from the post of SK -II to Tradesman Skilled, the applicant has sought for correction of the said error by filing necessary representation. The present application is in accordance with law. Therefore, the objections stated by the Respondent No.1 & 2 are not correct.
5. The respondents have filed the additional reply to the rejoinder filed by the applicant and has averred as follows:
a) It is stated that five individuals were already borne in Tradesman (Skilled) grade in the yard before joining of the applicant. Therefore, the 16 OA.No.170/586/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench applicant was placed at bottom of the seniority list as per extent policy norms. Hence, claiming promoted grade i.e., HSK-II on transfer despite knowing the facts prior, compassionate transfer is against the legitimate rights and interests of 05 personnel who are senior in the seniority roster.
Applicant has also found it convenient not to include his seniors as respondents.
b) Applicant has filed the instant OA, wherein he is claiming seniority in the rank and consequently promotion. It is re-iterated that applicant vide undertaking stated that he is willing to join the new unit with zero seniority.
c) The Hon'ble Apex Court has upheld the placement of individual at the bottom of seniority roster in new unit when transferred on compassionate grounds. Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly laid down that the 'eligibility for promotion' cannot be confused with seniority' as they are different and distinct factors The applicant falsely represented for placement in seniority roster based on date of his recruitment as against joining date at Respondent No.1.
d) Applicant's past service will not be wiped out and will be counted although he is placed at bottom of the seniority list at Respondent No. 1. Applicant was fully aware of the facts and hence he executed an undertaking to this effect. It is not open to him to turn around and claim seniority rendered in earlier unit and hence estopped. 17
OA.No.170/586/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench
6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings made by them.
7. In the present case, the applicant is challenging the order dated 15.9.2020, vide which the respondents have stated as follows:
"2. AND WHEREAS, the above mentioned points have been noted for consideration and examined, the following emerge
(a) On scrutiny of your service document, it is observed that from Movement Order DYPIP/9/121/2017/III dated 30 Jun 17 duly authorised by HQWNC letter CS(II)/3230/IND/MUT/II dated 29 Mar 17 that your transfer was on compassionate grounds in lower grade of Skilled (Control Fitter Instrument) from HSK-II.
Movement Order also explicitly mentions that "the seniority of the individual will be reckoned from the date of his reporting to NSRY (Kar), which in your case was 01 Jul 17.
(b) AND WHEREAS, you have submitted UNDERTAKING to accept the transfer on compassionate grounds in lower grade of Skilled with zero seniority. Such transfers should not be prejudicial to the legitimate interest of anyone in the department to which you are transferred. As against Shri M Devdas, HSK II (Radar Fitter) being the only individual in the base roster at Kochi, it is pertinent that there are Five personnel senior to you in the roster at Naval Base, Karwar.
18
OA.No.170/586/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench
(c) AND WHEREAS, You have since been demoted based on the Undertaking given by you to lower grade during your posting to NSRY(Kar) during your transfer on compassionate grounds in lower grade at NSRY(Kar). Service for promotion to higher grade has now re-commenced w.e.f. your date of assuming duties at NSRY, Karwar ie. we.f. 01.07.2017. You would thus be eligible for promotion on completion of qualifying service w.e.f. this date.
(d) HQKNA vide letter CS/4200/FOK/DPC dated 26 Aug 20 has also clarified that earlier service period will be counted for pension purpose only. Your previous service shall be counted towards increment, leave, pension etc. and not towards seniority and promotion.
(e) AND WHEREAS, based on the above, your representation stands disposed off."
8. The applicant has relied upon various Supreme Court Judgments, whereas it has been clarified that the matter regarding consideration of service rendered in the previous cadre for the purpose of seniority in the new cadre consequent to transfer to the new cadre on compassionate grounds, based on a request by the person concerned, is no more res-integra. The service rendered in the previous cadre is to be counted as regular service for the purpose of considering the applicant's eligibility for promotion in cases where certain minimum years of service is required for the purpose of making a person eligible for promotion. However, the service rendered in 19 OA.No.170/586/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench the earlier cadre is not to be counted for the purpose of seniority in the new cadre. The applicant is placed at the bottom seniority in the new cadre to which he has been transferred.
9. The applicant, in the present case, was very well aware of this condition regarding refixation of his seniority in the new cadre at the Karwar Unit. He had also signed a declaration at the time of his mutual transfer, on request, which, inter alia, contained the following terms:
"UNDERTAKING Shri Malaya Kumar Nayak, T.No. 12823-L Grade HSK-II Trade CONT. Fitter Instrument of C.No. 84 Deptt. MWEA Naval Dockyard, Mumbai hereby tender an undertaking to transfer on Compassionate Grounds to NSRY, Karwar on the following conditions:-
a) I am willing to accept my fresh appointment on transfer to receiving unit in the lower direct recruitment grade of Tradesman (SKL)
b) My past seniority in Naval Dockyard, Mumbai in the HSK-II grade will not be counted for promotion and I will not claim for the same.
c) I will travel to NSRY, Karwar at my own expenses and will not claim TA/ DA and joining time, as the transfer is at my own request.
d) I will cover my joining period for leave due to me as the transfer is at my own request.20
OA.No.170/586/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench
e) My seniority in the SKL grade may be counted from the date of my reporting to receiving unit."
10. There is, therefore, no doubt, whatsoever, that the applicant had agreed to the specific condition relating to losing his existing seniority at the time of seeking transfer on compassionate grounds. He had also agreed to accept his fresh appointment on transfer to the receiving unit in the lower direct recruitment grade of Tradesman (SKL), although he was admittedly working in the grade of HSK II at that point of time. However, as admitted by the respondents, the period of service rendered by him at Naval Dockyard, Mumbai, of 14 years and 3 months, is to be counted for the purpose of his eligibility for consideration for promotion in terms of qualifying service, if any, in the post of HSK II.
11. It has not clearly been mentioned by the respondents whether the applicant was falling in the zone of consideration for promotion to HSK II at the time of DPC for the year 2019. However, if the applicant is falling within the zone of consideration for promotion to HSK II grade, then his earlier service has to be counted towards his eligibility for being considered as such.
12. The impugned order passed by the respondents has stated that his earlier service period will be counted for pension, leave and gratuity etc. only. This is in contravention to the law on the subject, wherein the past service rendered is also to be counted towards eligibility for consideration for promotion in addition to pension, leave and gratuity etc. Accordingly, the following directions are issued:
21
OA.No.170/586/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench
a) The order dated 15.09.2020 issued by Respondent No.2 is modified to the extent that the applicant's regular service rendered by him in his previous cadre at Naval Dockyard, Mumbai, shall also be counted for the purpose of his eligibility while considering his case for promotion to HSK II grade by the Competent Authority under rules.
b) The case of the applicant shall be considered by the DPC provided he falls within the zone of consideration for the purpose of promotion to HSK II grade, keeping in view his eligibility in terms of his total service, including his past service at Naval Dockyard, Mumbai in the grade of SKL (Control Fitter) and HSK II (Control Fitter) at NSRY, Karwar.
13. The OA stands disposed of in terms of the above. However, there shall be no orders so as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/vmr/