Jharkhand High Court
Allauddin Khan vs Union Of India Through Director General on 14 September, 2022
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh, Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 5675 of 2019
Allauddin Khan --- --- Petitioner
Versus
1.Union of India through Director General, Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi
2.Labour Welfare Commissioner, Ministry of Labour
& Employment, Govt. of India, Ranchi
3.Welfare Commissioner, Ministry of Labour & Employment,
Govt. of India, Patna
4.Account Officer, Ministry of Labour & Employment, Ranchi
5.Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Working as UDC, Ministry of Labour
& Welfare Organization, Govt. of India, Office of Welfare
Commissioner, Patna --- --- Respondents
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner : M/s Jai Prakash, Sr. Adv., & Chaitali Chatterjee Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondent-UOI : Mrs. Nitu Sinha, CGC For the Respondent No.5 : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate 08/14.09.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By the impugned order dated 12.03.2019 passed in O.A. No. 051/000224/2018 and order dated 08.05.2019 passed in R.A. No. 051/00027/201919, learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi has refused to quash the seniority list dated 25.09.2017 and declined to issue any direction for promoting the petitioner as Upper Division Clerk w.e.f. 31.08.2007 and thereafter as Head Clerk cum Accountant w.e.f. 01.09.2012. Petitioner had claimed that his seniority would count from initial date of joining dated 11.09.1991 as in the case of one Vimal Kumar Sinha. He has also alleged that the respondent no.5 had entered the service as 'Sevika' which is a separate cadre and he has jumped in the cadre of Clerks on compassionate ground. Therefore, he should not be placed above the petitioner. It however, transpires from the pleadings on record and on perusal of the impugned order that on petitioner's own request, he was transferred to the Office of Welfare Commissioner, Karma by office order dated 21.09.2001(Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of Respondent no.5), which he joined. The communication bearing Admn. 7557 dated 21.12.2001 contained a condition that he would rank junior to all existing junior clerks working in Karma region. Petitioner/applicant had joined on 26.12.2001 at Bara Jamda. Respondent No. 5 was promoted to the UDC cadre w.e.f 31.08.2007 and the petitioner/ applicant was promoted in the year 2010. As such, learned CAT did not find the claim of the petitioner/ applicant -2- tenable both on facts and in law.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied upon the contents of the written statements filed by the respondents before the learned CAT in the instant O.A enclosed to his rejoinder Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also shown the document at page 44, which appears to be a combined seniority list of Junior Clerk of the Labour Welfare Organization, Karma as on 01.10.2002 where it is stated that petitioner is shown at serial no.11 with his date of appointment in the present grade as 01.11.2001 above Sanjay Kr. Sinha and Rajesh Kr. Sahu. Petitioner was an appointee of 1991. Petitioner has also referred to Annexure-7, minutes of the meeting held on 27.06.2014 before the Welfare Commissioner Office, Ranchi, Karma in respect of earmarking of the staffs strength of the office of Welfare Commissioner, Patna to be moved from Welfare Commissioner Office Ranchi/Karma region. There amongst the UDC staffs, respondent no5 stands at serial no.3 while petitioner is at serial no.2. In substance, allegation of continued injustice as respects the petitioner has been alleged.
4. As per learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, petitioner's request transfer was to Karma and that took place on 01.11.2001. However, when he was refused joining, by a subsequent letter no. 7557 dated 21.12.2001 he was offered posting as LDC in the office of Welfare Commissioner, Labour Organization, Bara Jamda with the condition that he would rank junior to all existing junior clerks working in Karma region. It is submitted that such a condition was imposed post the posting at Bara Jamda on his representation. Though Sanjay Kr. Sinha and Rajesh Kr. Sahu, both LDC came to LWO on their request from other department namely Ministry of Textile, New Delhi in the year 2002 and had not completed 8 years of service in LWO, which is the minimum requirement period from promotion from LDC to UDC, however, they were promoted to the post of UDC and for the said promotion their service in the Ministry of Textile was taken into consideration. Those two UDCs were never put at the bottom of the seniority list. The injustice against the petitioner had continued and therefore, he approached the learned CAT in 2018 in the instant O.A. It is submitted that petitioner may not have any grudge against respondent no.5 but the Court may direct the respondent to restore his seniority with -3- effect from his date of joining i.e., 1991 otherwise he continues to suffer.
5. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the pleadings on record relied upon by them and also perused the impugned order of the learned CAT. The case of the petitioner hinges on the plea that on being transferred to Karma in November 2001 on his representation as his wife was posted there, there was no condition to put his seniority at the bottom. The said condition was imposed by a subsequent communication bearing letter no. 7557 dated 21.12.2001 issued by the L.W.O, Karma. Petitioner has also objected to the seniority list published in 2002 i.e., 01.10.2002 but that remained un-replied. In the meantime, promotion to LDC cadre were given to the respondent no.5. In 2014 when certain employees in the UDC and LDC cadre were moved from the Welfare Commissioner office, Ranchi/ Karma region to Welfare Commissioner, Office, Patna, the name of respondent no.5 appeared at serial no.3 below the petitioner. This movement of respondent no.5 also was on his willingness. However, on this occasion he has not been made junior.
6. Office order contained in memo no. 7557 dated 21.12.2001 is extracted herein under:
"Subject:-Joining in Labour Welfare Organisation, Karma, Jharkhand, Region.
On the basis of personal representation made by Shri Allauddin Khan, on 19.12.2001 and in consultation with the Welfare Commissioner(H.Q.) Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, it has been decided to offer posting as L.D.C. in the office of Welfare Administrator, Labour Welfare Organisation, Barajamda under this organization with the conditions that he will rank junior to all existing Junior clerks working in Karma region.
If the above conditions are acceptable to him, he may report to the Welfare Administrator, L.W. Orgn. Barajamda on any working day.
(V.S.S. Srivastava) Welfare Commissioner"
All that the petitioner is raising now has happened about 21 years from today and 17 years back from the date of filing of the O.A. Had the petitioner been really aggrieved on putting him at the bottom of the seniority list in the list of junior clerk in the Karma region, he ought to have raised his grievances before the appropriate forum without waste of time. Promotion took place thereafter in the UDC cadre of the respondent no.5 in 2007 but petitioner remained silent. Today, after about 21 years of such condition imposed in the order of transfer by the Labour Welfare Commissioner, petitioner is agitating that injustice has -4- been done to him since then. Apart from respondent no.5, there may be other incumbents who have been promoted ahead of the petitioner from the same region, who are not before us but if the plea of petitioner is accepted at this stage, they would be adversely affected without opportunity of hearing. The minutes of the meeting referred at page 45 (Annexure-7 to the rejoinder) apparently are allocation of UDC and LDC between the Jharkhand and Bihar region. Usually options are taken from the serving employees as to whether they are willing to move from one region to other in cases of bifurcation of the cadre or bifurcation of the State. That does not mean that they are to be placed at the bottom of the list in the transferred cadre. That cannot be treated as transfer on representation which entails a condition that the incumbent would be placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the transferred place. The contention of the petitioner on that score appears to be misconceived.
7. Having considered the relevant facts and circumstances above, we do not find any grounds made out to interfere in the order of the learned CAT at this point of time after 21 years when such a condition contained in the office order bearing memo no. 7557 dated 21.12.2001 has remained unchallenged by the petitioner.
8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) A.Mohanty