Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shiwajee Pandey, Examiner Iii, ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through Secretary, ... on 15 February, 2008
ORDER
M. Ramachandran, J. (Vice Chairman)
1. The applicant is an Examiner-III working in the Ministry of Defence. The prayer made in the application is 'to restore him to his original rank and direct the respondents to allow him to be ruled under old Rules with all consequential benefits as ACP and right to be considered for the promotion to the next immediate higher grade, as opted for by the applicant under quota rota system and to grant presumptive pay of Examiner-II post to him.' He has impugned circular dated 15.10.2004 issued by the third respondent, whereby a direction was given that Examiners-III posted are to carry out sorting of letters on rotational basis. The applicant has attempted to bring his case under a generally accepted principle that a person is not to be pushed down to a lower post than to which he was initially engaged. Briefly, it is suggested that the impugned circular violates the safeguard since it requires him to perform a duty, which was inferior in status than the duties carried out by the entry grade. This amounts in effect as a reversion. In addition to the degradation, his promotional opportunities have been spoiled. In short, the introduction of the revised recruitment rules, is found by the applicant as making inroads to his rights and legitimate expectations he would opt to continue under the old rules, which were more protective in nature.
2. The applicant had been appointed as Examiner against a permanent post in November, 1995 and the cadre consisted of three different categories, namely, Supervisory Examiner, Examiner and Assistant Examiner. As a confirmed Examiner, he could have aspired for promotion to the post of Supervisory Examiner. By restructuring, according to him, havoc has been played whereby the present position is that his chances for promotion as Supervisory Examiner is obliterated. Normally as an Examiner on restructuring also, he was to be accommodated as Examiner-II commensurate with his status, and obviously a degradation has been imposed. It is submitted that initially he had filed a petition before the Supreme Court but had been permitted to approach this Tribunal and the Civil Appeal had been dismissed with liberty. This is shown as a reason for the delay in making the application.
3. However, after hearing the parties and adverting to the documents which have been made available by the respondents, we do not think that any hardship, as alleged has befallen on the applicant nor his constitutional rights in any manner have been infringed. The applicant admits that after the 5th Pay Commission, recruitment rules were framed and a cadre restructuring had been carried out on 28.10.1997. The Examiner's post was redesignated as Examiner-II and the Assistant Examiner post had been redesignated as an Examiner-III. We may further examine the merit of the argument that when he was an Examiner, he could have been accommodated only against the post of Examiner-II and not to a redesignated post of Assistant Examiner, and whether by the exercise carried out, there is arbitrariness perpetrated.
4. We feel that had the applicant known about the presence of a judgment passed by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in TA 8/2002 dated 26.09.2002, he would not have ventured to make such an effort. The precise issue as raised now had been considered by this Tribunal. The full factual details had been gone into, and it had been held that the application submitted by six persons situated like the applicant herein, had no merit. We are bound by the judgment as above, although the Learned Counsel for the applicant suggests that some of the matters that had been highlighted here had been not under consideration there. But when adequate explanation is given, for the redesignations, including that of the applicant, we do not think it might be possible for him to contend that the matter has to be looked from any different angles. No new grounds as claimed also are seen to exist.
5. The applicant was employed in the post of Examiner in the pay scale of Rs. 1600-2660, his pay had been fixed at Rs. 5000/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 in the revised pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 corresponding to the earlier scale of Rs. 1600-2660. A restructuring also had been carried out at that point of time without any change in the pay scale, by an order dated 23.05.2000. The details of the exercises carried out have been given in the counter reply filed specially with the help of Annexure R-1 order dated 28.10.1997.
6. There were 9 posts of Supervisory Examiner available. They were redesignated as Examiner-I without any change in the existing pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500. 20 posts of Examiners-II were decided as to be operative as a result of restructuring. Upgradation of 20 posts of Examiner was proposed. Thus, there was a jump for them to the scale of Rs. 5500-9000 from Rs. 5000-8000. There was a redesignation of 50 posts of Examiner (Rs. 5000-8000) as Examiner III but without any change in the pay scale. Simultaneously, 12 posts of Assistant Examiner in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000 were upgraded as Examiner-III and their posts were merged with their counterp Articles Resultantly, there were 9 posts of Examiner-I, 20 posts of Examiner-II and 62 posts of Examiner-III.
7. The applicant had not sufficient seniority for coming over for being promoted as Examiner II and some of his seniors were redesignated as Examiner-II. What has happened is that persons who were in the lower position of seniority, as Examiners, continued to be in the same pay scale, and were redesignated as Examiner-III, but simultaneously persons in the still lower category of Assistant Examiners also have come to occupy the posts of Examiner-III. The applicant's position of seniority has not been disturbed in any manner. He cannot also complain that posts of Assistant Examiners would not have been merged, consequent to restructuring. Evidently, the objection is about the designation. That is no reason for entertaining an application, on a suggestion that there has been a reversion. Annexure A-8 produced by the applicant himself shows that Assistant Examiners were also required to have basically the same qualifications as that of Examiners even as per the prescriptions that were in vogue.
8. The rules have been modified; so as to prescribe that an Examiner was not to get the position of Supervisory Examiner hereafter. The applicant will have to go through the intermediate category of Examiner-II and then only will reach the position of Examiner-I, which is the equivalent position of Supervisory Examiner. But as has been highlighted by the Supreme Court, the questions relating to nomenclature of posts, cadres, creation/abolition of posts, prescription of qualifications, etc. are exclusively within the realms of the administrative authorities (See. P.U. Joshi and Ors. v. Accountant General, Ahmedabad and Ors. ). A Government servant may not be entitled to urge that service rules, which govern him at the inception of his career, are to continue unchanged and he will be happy if option is given to him to continue to be governed by rules of his liking. The fact that a Government servant enjoys a status and is not on a contract will militate against the arguments. We find no merit in the application. It is dismissed.