Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Arvind Cairae & Others vs Union Of India & Others -Respondents on 17 November, 2009
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No. 767/2009 New Delhi this the 17th day of November, 2009. Honble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J) Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) Arvind Cairae & Others -Applicants -Versus- Union of India & Others -Respondents Memo of Appearance: For the Applicants Shri P.K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents Shri Krishan Kumar, Advocate. O R D E R Honble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J):
Rejection of request of DPA Grade-III and DPA Grade-II for absorption in Subordinate Statistical Service (SSS, for short) vide memorandum dated 15.10.2008 is the grievance of applicants. Earlier the applicants have approached this Tribunal in OA-812/2007, which was disposed of by an order dated 16.7.2008, in view of the fact that Senior Investigators are situated identically with those of EDP staff and the latter having been invidiously discriminated, directions have been issued that in view of the EDP staff handling statistical matters, to re-examine the claim for induction into SSS, as granted to Senior Investigators.
2. It is found that in a review of functioning of National Sample Survey Organization in the report of March, 1999 in para 4.1.6 regarding SSS it has been observed that the work requirement in case of data processing assistant requires statistical skills of very higher order and instead of creating separating computer cadre in National Sample Survey Organization they should be encadred in SSS. Acting on it, even an option has been extended to the applicants. However, a decision in WPC No.9680/2006 in M.L. Zutsi v. Union of India, whereby an issue of Grade IV of ISS being encadred was decided, where the export committees report has been relied upon to hold that they are not carrying any functions of statistical side, so are not entitled for inclusion in ISS. This has been the basis of respondents rejection of request of applicants.
3. Learned counsel of applicants states that this decision is against the record and against review committees findings and shows non-application of mind by the respondents on re-consideration.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel of respondents would vehemently oppose the contentions and stated that the EDP posts are based on non-statistical functions and having decided not to encadre them, the decision does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
5. It is trite that when an administrative authority acts, it has to act in accordance with the material on record and should not on misconceived notion reject the claim. Having recorded a specific finding, the Tribunals ordered re-consideration for inclusion of EDP posts of DPA-III and DPA-II to SSS in the same manner as SA has been inducted, yet on the basis of an expert committees report, that too, under the erstwhile ISS the claim has been rejected. This is oblivious of the expert committees report of 1999 and the fact that it is no more res integra that while performing the basic functions DPA substantially perform high degree performance and the statistical functions as well. They deserve as per the norms and conditions laid down for SSS to be inducted and absorbed therein.
6. The defence of policy decision raised by the learned counsel of respondents in the above view of the matter under the guises of policy decision cannot be a valid defence if the policy decision is found to be irrational, as ruled by the Apex Court in CSIR v. R.C. Agrawal, (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 542. Moreover, in the matter of policy framing when it is against the rules or against the Constitution, the same has to be interfered, as ruled by the Apex Court in Villianur Iyar Kkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India & Others, 2009 (8) SCALE 310. As we find that as a policy decision ignoring the statistical functions of DPA III and II and basing the rejection on a decision, which does not concern SSS, respondents have not in legal parlance re-considered the issue following the directions of the Tribunal in OA No.812/2007. The order passed cannot sustain in law.
7. Resultantly, for the foregoing reasons, OA is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Respondents are directed to absorb DPA Grade-III and Grade-II in SSS from the date of inception with all consequences in law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
(Dr. Veena Chhotray) (Shanker Raju) Member (A) Member (J) San.