Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Darshan Singh vs M/O Home Affairs on 4 October, 2018
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA No.219/2015
New Delhi, this the 4th day of October, 2018
Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
Hon'ble Ms. Aradhana Johri, Member (A)
Shri Darshan Singh, S/o S. Inder Singh
R/o 282, Sainik vihar, Shakur Basti
Delhi-110034 (aged about 65 years) ..Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri A.K. Bhakt)
Versus
1. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Delhi Sachivalaya, IP Estate
New Delhi-110002.
2. The Commissioner (Industries)
Industries Department
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
419, Udyog Sadan
Patparganj Industrial Area
Delhi-110091.
3. Ministry of Home Affairs
Govt. of India through its Secretary
North Block, Central Secretariat
New Delhi-1
4. Shri S.K. Khosla
(DANICS- Retd. Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Flat No.1, East Avenue Road
East Punjabi Bagh
New Delhi-110026.
5. Shri K.K. Sharma
Retd. Dy. Commissioner
(DANICS- Retd.)
Through Commissioner of Industries
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Udyog Sadan
2
OA No.219/2015
Patparganj Industrial Area
Delhi-110092. ..Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Gyanendra Singh)
ORDER (ORAL)
Justice L. Narasimha Reddy:-
The applicant was working as Administrative Officer on ad-hoc basis in the DANICS. For regular induction into the entry grade of DANICS for the vacancies of the year 2001, a DPC was convened. The applicant was found fit and was included in the panel. However, the 54 vacancies that were available, at that time, were filled by his seniors. For the vacancies of subsequent years i.e. 2002-2004, the DPC was conducted at a later point of time. He is said to have been found unfit in the DPC and accordingly his name was not included in the panel. A communication dated
02.04.2014, in this behalf, was given as a reply to the representation submitted by the applicant. The same is challenged in this OA.
2. The applicant contends that once he was found fit for the vacancy year 2001, there was absolutely no basis for treating him as unfit for the vacancies of subsequent years. He submits that the adverse entry 3 OA No.219/2015 made by the Reporting Officer for the period 7/2001- 3/2002 and 2002-2003 was virtually neutralized and wiped away by the competent authority through order dated 04.09.2006.
3. Separate counter affidavits are filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, respondent 3 and respondent No.4. Reference is made to various proceedings. Regarding the question as to why the applicant was found unfit for the subsequent period, it is mentioned that the DPC has taken the entries referable to the year 2001-2003, into account.
4. We heard Shri A.K. Bhakt, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Gyanendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents in detail.
5. The applicant has since retired from service. It needs to be mentioned that the applicant was holding that post of entry grade in DANICS on ad hoc basis for several years and was appointed on regular basis on 07.10.2004. The question remains as to whether he was entitled to be appointed to that post from an earlier date. From the impugned order dated 02.04.2014 it is evident that the applicant was found fit 4 OA No.219/2015 for the vacancies of the year 2001 and was included in the panel. However, he could not get a chance since the vacancies were limited and the seniors above him were many.
6. It appears that a DPC was held for the vacancies of the years 2002-2004. It is in this context that the applicant was found unfit. The applicant himself filed an order dated 04.09.2006 passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. A perusal of the same discloses that the Reporting Officer of the applicant had made the following remarks in the ACRs for the period 7/2001- 3/2002 and 2002-2003:-
"Part-II Col.2. General assessment:- I found the officer routine bound, unable to take initiative, or focus on areas of importance. He also lacks the breadth of vision required to understand broad departmental objectives and work according to them. This limitation gave rise to a degree of intra departmental friction."
The Reviewing Officer, however, did not agree with this and observed as under:-
"Part III Col.3 General remarks with A good sincere officer who specific comments about the needed to be pushed to general remarks giving by achieve goals/targets. Reporting Officer and remarks about the outstanding work of the officer.5
OA No.219/2015
7. Taking these aspects into account, the competent authority arrived at a conclusion that Col.2 of Part-II that is the remarks of the Reporting Officer shall be read as "A diligent officer". As regards Col.3 of Part III he said that it shall be read as "Very Good". With this, the small damage that occurred to the service record of the applicant, stood removed. Therefore, the declaration of the applicant as „unfit‟ for the vacancy year 2002-2004 cannot be treated as valid. The counter affidavits do not even indicate that there exists any other reason. We are of the view that the applicant deserves to be extended the benefit, on par with that of his juniors.
8. We, therefore, dispose of the OA directing that the applicant shall be treated as having been inducted into the entry grade of DANICS with effect from the year in which his immediate junior in the feeder category was inducted. However, he shall not be entitled for any arrears on account of change of date of induction into DANICS. At the same time, the applicant shall be entitled for the benefit of revision of his pension worked out on the basis of the change of induction into DANICS. The pension revision shall be done within 6 OA No.219/2015 three months from the date of receipt of this order and revised pension shall be paid prospectively.
9. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Aradhana Johri) (Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) Member(A) Chairman /vb/