Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
B Sahu vs D/O Post on 1 February, 2023
1 O.A.No. 260/00315 of 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00315 of 2016
Reserved on : 16.01.2023 Pronounced on: 01.02.2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. SWARUP KUMAR MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Bholanath Sahu, aged about 51 years, S/o. Late
Bansidhar Sahu, At Bagdor, P.O. Luthurbandh, P.S.
Titilagarh, Dist. Bolangir, now working as a Part Time
Casual Labourer in RMS 'K' Division, Jharsuguda-
768201 and under the Operative Head, i.e. HRO, RMS
'K' DN, Jharsuguda-768201, At/P.O./Via. Jharsuguda
H.O., P.S. Jharsuguda, Dist. Jharsuguda.
..... Applicant
For the Applicant : Mr. T.K.Mishra, Counsel
-Versus-
1) Union of India represented through it's Director
General of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi
- 110001;
2) Chief Post Master General, Odisha Circle,
Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurda-751001;
3) Post Master General, Sambalpur Region,
At/P.O./P.S.- Sambalpur, Dist-Sambalpur.
4) Superintendent, RMS 'K' Division, Jharsuguda, Dist-
Jharsuguda.
2 O.A.No. 260/00315 of 2016
5) HRO, RMS 'K' Division, At/P.O./P.S.-Jharsuguda,
Dist-Jharsuguda.
6) Rabi Sandha, aged about 46 years, S/o-Not known,
working as MTS under SRO, RMS-'K' Division,
Rourkela, At/P.O.-Rourkela, Dist-Sundargarh.
.....Respondents
For the Respondents: Mr. B.R.Swain, Counsel
ORDER
Swarup Kumar Mishra, Member (J):
The applicant, who belongs to OBC category, has filed this OA challenging the order dated 22.02.2016 (A/11) vide which he has not been found eligible for promotion to MTS. He has further prayed to quash the promotion order of private Respondent No.6, viz. Rabi Sandh, vide order dated 16.12.2015 w.e.f. 22.01.2015 and to treat the applicant senior to respondent No.6.
2. It is the case of the applicant that he was engaged as Water Carrier-cum-Farace as part time worker vide order dated 26.02.1992. A seniority list of part time workers of RMS 'K' Division was prepared by HRO, RMS 'K' Division, Jharsuguda wherein the name of the applicant was enlisted at Sl. No. 7 whereas the respondent No.6 was placed below 3 O.A.No. 260/00315 of 2016 him at Sl. No. 8. It is alleged that the respondents without considering his case promoted respondent No.6, who is junior to the applicant, vide Annexure-A/7. He submitted representation on 06.09.2015 that has been rejected vide Annexure-A/11 dated 22.02.2016 on the ground that since he had crossed the cut off upper age limit of 25 years as per the existing Recruitment Rules he was not eligible for promotion to MTS. Applicant in support of his contention submits that during his initial engagement there was no recruitment policy for appointment of casual workers, however, keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surinder Singh Vs. UOI & Ors, OM No. 49014/2/86 Estt.(C) dated 07.06.1988 was issued reviewing the policy regarding engagement of casual workers in Central Government offices. In the year 2010, Govt. of India, Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology formulated rules for recruitment of MTS, which was applicable on 12.12.2010 wherein the age of MTS in Part-I, posts of circle and administrative offices, is 18-27 years relaxable for government servants upto 35 years for SC/ST and 3 years for OBC and the crucial date for determining the age limit to be the closing date for receipt of application. For MTS Part-2, i.e. post of 4 O.A.No. 260/00315 of 2016 Sub-ordinate office, the age limit is 18-27 years and the age limit for appointment of GDS thereafter 50 years as on the 1st day of January of the year of the vacancy relaxable upto 5 years for SC/ST and upto 3 years for OBC. The Govt. of India, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology framed a new recruitment rules called Department of Posts (Multi Tasking Staff) Recruitment Rules, 2015 applicable from 14.05.2015 (A/15), which is the latest recruitment rules, and, in the said rules, there is no age limit in respect of promotion of casual workers. It is further alleged that one Indrajeet Mahato, who was over aged during his initial appointment but he has been promoted whereas applicant's case was not considered on the ground of overage. Alleging discrimination and bias through the hands of the authorities, the applicant has prayed for the relief as stated above.
3. Counter has been filed by the respondents opposing the prayer of the applicant. The contention of the respondents is that one UR MTS vacancy for the year 2015-2016 was approved for promotion under 25% quota of casual labourer on selection cum seniority quota through DPC. Applicant's case was placed before DPC held on 04.09.2015 but was not considered on the ground that he was not fulfilling the age 5 O.A.No. 260/00315 of 2016 criteria as per revised recruitment rules notified in Gazette of India on 14.05.2015, Pat-II, Column 6, Note-3 and Column-10 and had completed 50 years 0 months and 29 days as on 01.04.2015. He was of 27 years, 02 months and 24 days at the time of his engagement. Accordingly, he did not fulfil the age criteria as per Govt. of India, Ministry of Communication & IT, Department of Posts letter dated 13.01.2016. His representation dated 06.09.2015 was duly considered and reason of rejection was communicated to him vide letter dated 22.02.2016. It is submitted by them that there being no illegality in the decision making process, the OA is liable to be dismissed.
4. Heard Ld Counsel for both the parties and perused the records.
5. It is noticed that the respondents in their counter have taken a stand that applicant's case was placed before DPC held on 04.09.2015 but was not considered on the ground that he was not fulfilling the age criteria as per revised recruitment rules notified in Gazette of India on 14.05.2015, Pat-II, Column 6, Note-3 and Column-10 and had completed 50 years 0 months and 29 days as on 01.04.2015. However, it is seen from the said Note-3 that there is a clause for relaxation of age upto three years in case of persons belonging to OBC but it is not 6 O.A.No. 260/00315 of 2016 forthcoming whether the respondents had applied this relaxation in case of the applicant, who is stated to be an OBC candidate. Further, vide memo dated 20.01.2021, it has been intimated by Ld. Counsel for the applicant that applicant in the meantime has been promoted to the post of MTS vide order dated 22.02.2019 on selection cum seniority basis for the vacancy year 2018. We are at a loss to know how the applicant was found ineligible on the ground of crossing the age limit for the vacancy year 2015-2016 and junior to him was selected against the post of MTS on selection cum seniority basis whereas he has been approved by the DPC held on 06.01.2019 for selection to MTS cadre on same selection cum seniority basis for the vacancy year 2018. In view of the observations made above, we are of a considered opinion that grave injustice has been done to the applicant in the decision making process of the matter. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.02.2016 is quashed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for selection/appointment to the post of MTS from the date his junior was given appointment and, in case of his appointment, the applicant shall be entitled to notional fixation of his 7 O.A.No. 260/00315 of 2016 pay. Respondents are directed to complete the entire exercise within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. OA is accordingly allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.
(PRAMOD KUMAR DAS) (SWARUP KUMAR MISHRA) MEMBER(A) MEMBER (J) RK/PS