Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Karam Vir Singh vs Union Of India on 6 April, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi. OA No. 2816/2010 M.A. No. 2209/2010 M.A. No. 2223/2010 M.A. No. 3169/2010 M.A. No.585/2011 with O.A. No.675/2011 M.A. No. 673/2011 and O.A. No.817/2011 New Delhi this the 6th day of April, 2011. Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) Honble Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) 1. Shri Karam Vir Singh, S/o Shri Ranjit Singh, R/o C-58, D.A. Flats, Karkardooma, Delhi-110092. 2. Shri Madan Lal, S/o Shri Hanuman Prasad, R/o D-1011, Sector-1, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi-110062. 3. Shri Rajvir Singh, S/o Shri Chhotey Lal, R/o 28/18-A/77F/4, Gali No.2, Edgah Road, Bhola Nath Nagar Extn., Shahdara, Delhi-110092. Applicants By Advocate: Shri K. Singhal with Shri J.S. Gautam and Shri Hitendra Rath. Versus 1. Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Govt. of India, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. Union of India Through The Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, North Block, New Delhi. 3. Director General of Works, Central Public Works Department, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011. 4. Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, New Delhi. 5. Inderjit, S/o Shri Srichand Yadav, R/o G-4, SGM Nagar, NIT, Faridabad (Haryana). 6. Rajesh Kumar Rastogi, S/o Late Shri Ram Nath Rastogi, R/o 121B, Pocket F, GTB Enclave, Delhi-110093. 7. K.C. Pant, S/o Late Shri S.D. Pant, R/o H.No.A-734, Sector-19, Noida. 8. Ashish Kumar Roy, S/o Shri Surath Lal Roy, R/o D-13, SM-2, Dilshad Colony, Delhi-110095. 9. J.P. Srivastava, S/o Shri R.N. Srivastava, R/o B-123, Brij Vihar, Ghaziabad (U.P.) 10. Yash Pal Singh, S/o Shri Chauhal Singh, R/o 1/131, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad (UP). 11. Ashok Kumar Sikka, S/o Late Shri Ram Lal, R/o 95-B, Sunder Aptt., Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110087. 12. Raj Kumar, S/o Late Shri Lachhi Ram, R/o F-127, Road No.3, Endrews Ganj, New Delhi-49. 13. P. Paneer Selvam, S/o Shri A. Ponnuraj, R/o 37, Kali Bari Aptt., Gole Market, New Delhi-110001. 14. Ramesh Chand Sharma, S/o Shri Chandki Ram Sharma, R/o 606, Friends Cooperative Society, Sector 12, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad (UP). 15. M.C. Gautam, S/o Shri C.D. Gautam, R/o 744, Laxmi Bai Nagar, New Delhi. .. Respondents. By Advocate : Shri D.S. Mahendru for official respondents, i.e. R-1 to 3, Ms. Alka Sharma for the UPSC, i.e. R-4. Shri M.K. Bhardwaj for private respondents, i.e.R-5 to 15. O.A. No.675/2011 M.A. No. 673/2011 Chandra Shekhar Azad, S/o Late Shri Ram Singh Azad, R/o L-35, ADA Colony, Brij Vihar, Aligarh (UP). Applicant By Advocate: Shri K. Singhal with Shri J.S. Gautam and Shri Hitendra Rath. Versus 1. Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Govt. of India, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. Union of India Through the Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, North Block, New Delhi. 3. Director General of Works, Central Public Works Department, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011. 4. Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, New Delhi. Respondents By Advocate : Shri D.S. Mahendru for official respondents, i.e. R-1 to 3, Ms. Alka Sharma for the UPSC, i.e. R-4. O.A. No.817/2011 1. Parmeshwar S. Anjutagi, Alias Paramatma S. Kamblenavar, Age 50 years, Working as Assistant Engineer (Civil), Valuation Cell Income Tax, Solapur-413 001. Residing at 74/75, Yamini Nagar, Opp. Nutan Parashala Bijapur Road, Solapur-413 004. 2. Pratap Singh, Age 51 years, Working as Executive Engineer (Civil), Valuation Cell Income Tax, Mumbai Residing at 54, Apartment House, Hyderabad Estate, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai. Applicants By Advocate: Shri K. Singhal with Shri J.S. Gautam and Shri Hitendra Rath. Versus 1. Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi-110 011. 2. The Director General, Central Public Works Department, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi-110 011. 3. The Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi-110 001. 4. The Chairman, Union Public Service Commission, Aurangjeb Road, New Delhi-110 001. 5. Inderjit, S/o Shri Srichand, Assistant Engineer (Civil), Residing at G-4, SGM Nagar, NIT, Faridabad (Haryana). Respondents By Advocate : Shri D.S. Mahendru for official respondents, i.e. R-1 to 3, Ms. Alka Sharma for the UPSC, i.e. R-4. O R D E R (Oral)
Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) The issue raised in all these cases are identical, all the counsel are the same and the departments are also same, therefore, with the consent of all the parties all these cases were heard together. For the purpose of narrating the facts, OA No.2816/2010 is being taken as a lead case.
O.A. 2816/2010Three applicants have challenged seniority list dated 17.08.2010 (page 49 and 50) whereby position of the applicants has been depressed without putting them on notice and without deciding their representations in spite of specific directions given by this Tribunal to this effect.
2. It is stated by the applicants that notification was issued for Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (hereinafter referred to as LDCE) for the post of Assistant Engineer on 01.08.1992 (page 53) whereby 227 vacancies were notified, out of which 114 vacancies were for General, 69 vacancies for Scheduled Castes and 34 vacancies for Scheduled Tribes candidates. These were the backlog vacancies for the earlier years. The LDCE was conducted on 23.12.1992, wherein 114 General candidates and 33 SC candidates had passed. The Applicants name figured at Sl.No.135, 122 and 116, respectively in the SC category (page 55 at 57). Pursuant to the above LDCE, all the applicants were promoted as Assistant Engineers vide order dated 16.09.1993 (page 58 at 61). In the above order, applicant No.3 was shown at Sl.No.116 with seniority position at 2308, applicant No.2 at Sl.No.122 with seniority position at 2320 and applicant No.1 at Sl.No.135 with seniority position 2346.
3. It is further submitted by the counsel for the applicant that all the notified vacancies could not be filled with regard to the reserved category, therefore, in the year 1994 CPWD, recommended dereservation of SC posts and appointed 78 persons belonging to General category on the posts which were earlier meant for SC candidates vide order dated 19.07.1994. The applicants did not have any grievance till this stage because all these persons were placed below them vide order dated 04.06.2002 (page 68).
4. The grievance of the applicants arose thereafter. The applicants as well as those 78 persons, who had been appointed subsequently in the year 1994, both groups had filed separate OAs in the Tribunal. One filed by the applicants bearing OA No. 696/2009 whereas other filed by the private respondents bearing OA No.1443/2009. Both the OAs were disposed of on 08.02.2010 (page 196) and 07.09.2009 (page 193) respectively with a direction to the respondents to consider the representations of the applicants in both the OAs and decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order.
5. Pursuant to the directions given by this Tribunal, respondents issued two orders, one on 30.12.2009 (page 195) and the other on 01.06.2010 (page 201). In both these orders, they had mentioned that the records are not traceable and they would be reconstructing the file with the help of letters received from the other departments. In the subsequent order dated 01.06.2010, they had stated that the file has been reconstructed and it is being sent to the DOP&T for clarification. However, thereafter no separate order was passed by the respondents deciding the representations, either of the applicants or of the private respondents. They straightway issued seniority list dated 17.08.2010 (page 49 at 50) whereby all the private respondents have been placed above the applicants without giving any reasons whatsoever. It is, in these circumstances, that the applicants have approached this Tribunal in this O.A. challenging the seniority list dated 17.08.2010.
6. Respondents have opposed this OA and have given reasons as to why private respondents have been placed above the applicants.
7. We have heard all the counsel and perused the pleadings also.
8. Admittedly, in the 1st round of OAs filed by the applicants as well as by the private respondents, this Tribunal had directed the official respondents to consider the representations of the applicants and decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order. Though initially respondents had stated in their order that they are reconstructing the files and have referred the matter to the DOP&T, but ultimately none of the representations, either by the applicants or by the private respondents, have been decided by the respondents. We do not find any reasoned order passed by the official respondents on record. The official respondents only issued seniority list dated 17.08.2010 whereby the seniority of the applicants before us is depressed that too without giving any reasons. In order to elaborate, applicant No.3 was shown at Sl.No.80 and his seniority position earlier was 2308 which was depressed to 2463, applicant No.2 was shown at Sl.No.86. His seniority position earlier was 2320 which was depressed to 2475 and applicant No.1 was shown at Sl.No.99. His seniority position earlier was 2346 which is depressed to 2501, whereas respondent No.5 who is shown at SL.No.56, his earlier seniority position was 2483 which has now been changed to 2416, meaning thereby he has been placed above the applicants. However, how this seniority position has been changed is nowhere mentioned in the order passed by the respondents while issuing the seniority list. Moreover, before altering the seniority of applicants, they were not even given a show cause notice. The action of respondents is thus violative of principles of natural justice.
9. In view of above, seniority list dated 17.08.2010 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to first dispose of the representations of applicants as well as that of private respondents in terms of the directions given by this Tribunal by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to all the parties. In case, respondents feel the seniority position already assigned to the applicants needs to be changed, they shall put the applicants on notice giving reasons as to why seniority needs to be changed and then pass the necessary orders after considering the representations of the applicants. We would like to clarify that we have not touched the other merits of the case because respondents have yet to decide the representations. If anything is commented at this stage, it would amount to pre-judging the issue.
10. With the above direction, this OA stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
O.A. No. 675/2011It is stated by the counsel for the applicant and respondents both that the facts of this case are identical with that of OA 2816/2010 except the seniority position, i.e. applicants name was shown at Sl.No.111. His earlier seniority position was 2370 which was depressed to 2525.
In view of above, OA 675/2011 is disposed of in terms of the order passed in OA 2816/2010 as above.
O.A. No. 817/2011It is stated by the counsel for the applicants and respondents both that the facts of this case are identical with that of OA 2816/2010 except the seniority position, i.e. Applicant No.1 was shown at Sl.No.95. His earlier seniority position was 2338 which was depressed to 2493 and applicant No.2 was shown at Sl.No.94. His earlier seniority position was 2336 which was depressed to 2491.
In view of above, OA 817/2011 is disposed of in terms of the order passed in OA 2816/2010 as above.
Let a copy of this order be placed in all the files.
(DR. A.K. MISHRA) (MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/jyoti/