Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Sandeep Gupta vs M/O Finance on 11 July, 2024
O.A./1208/2015
(Reserved on 09.07.2024)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
***
Original Application No.1208 of 2015
th
Pronounced on this the 11 Day of July, 2024.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Sandeep Gupta, son of Sri Mohan Lal Gupta, resident of 942 Section-4R,
Avas Vikas Colony, Bodla, Agra-282007 posted as Inspector, Noida
Customs Commissionerate, ICD, P.O. Inland container Depot, Dadri,
Greater Noida, Gautam Buddh Nagar (U.P.).
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Rakesh Verma
Shri Anil Kumar Dhaka
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise & Custom,
Hudco Vishala Building, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066.
2. Chief Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax,
7-A, Ashok Marg, Lucknow.
3. Additional Commissioner (Cadre Control) Office of the Chief
Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, 7-A,
Ashok Marg, Lucknow.
...Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Rajpal Singh
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A) Present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"a) To allow this Original Application and grant relaxation of four months from qualifying the departmental examination and provide the opportunity of notional promotion from Page 1 of 5 MADHU KUMARI O.A./1208/2015 01.07.01 for the post of UDC and then Inspector thereafter the salary benefits be given at par with the junior.
b) To allow this Original Application and the Respondents may be directed to regarding relaxation of four months from qualifying the departmental examination to the applicant and pass an appropriate order regarding seniority of the applicant in Inspector Category.
c) To pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case
d) Award the cost of the application to the applicant."
2. Brief facts of this case as narrated in the Original Application are that the applicant was appointed as L.D.C. on 25.06.1997. In the month of March, 2000, the applicant appeared in the promotional examination of U.D.C. but could not clear one paper out of three papers. Then the applicant was called for departmental examination for passing the aforesaid one paper in the month of September, 2000 but the examination could not be held by the department for some reason. The exam was held on 20th and 21st December, 2000 in which the applicant appeared and qualified. The result of that exam was declared by the Commissionerate Meerut-I on 01.05.2001.
3. We have heard learned counsels appearing for both the parties.
4. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the result of the same departmental exam, which was common for all Commissionerates, held on 20th and 21st December, 2000 was declared by the Commissionerate Meerut-II on 08.03.2001. He further submits that it is clear that the result of the same exam was declared by the exam conducting agency i.e. DGI, New Delhi before 08.03.2001 and it may also be seen from the Estt. Order No. I/A/32/CCSC/2010 dated 04.05.2010 of Addl. Commissioner (Cadre Control), Lucknow for maintaining the uniformity in declaration of result, the date of declaration of result by NACEN Page 2 of 5 MADHU KUMARI O.A./1208/2015 be treated as the date of passing the examination. He states that a Review of the Departmental Promotion Committee was held in the month of June, 2011 for the year 2001-02 wherein so many persons have been promoted for UDC/ Inspector Category by giving them seniority from 01.07.2001/06.12.2002 respectively but the applicant was deprived from one time relaxation benefit as a result of which many of his juniors were promoted and the applicant lost his seniority by 12 years. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per DoPT circular and the procedure laid down pursuant thereto the departmental examination should be held in every year regularly scheduling the same in the month of March & September and the result should be declared accordingly up to the month of July and December of every year so that the eligibility which is taken into account on 1st January of every year is not hampered. But due to administrative lapses and reasons unknown the examination to be held in September, 2000 was delayed to December, 2000 further delaying the result which was declared on 01.05.2001 and the applicant could not qualify the departmental examination by the crucial date i.e. 01.01.2001 which is not the fault of the applicant. He argues that the department should have considered the correct seniority of the applicant for promotion. He further states that the Board vide letter dated 03.11.2006 issued by the Ministry of Finance referring the judgement dated 02.03.2004 rendered by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, had issued instructions to the CCE, Jaipur that the officers who passed the departmental examination on 09.01.2002 in the exam held in July, 2001 may be treated as having passed the examination on the crucial date i.e. 01.01.2002 for the purpose of their promotion. Hence, as per the decision of the Board, the applicant should be treated to have passed the departmental examination before 01.01.2001. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that he does not want to press his claim for being held eligible for the departmental examination held in 1999.
Page 3 of 5MADHU KUMARI O.A./1208/2015
5. In the counter reply, the respondents have submitted that the applicant could not be considered for UDC as he was not found eligible for promotion to the post of UDC on the crucial date i.e. 01.01.2001 as he had not qualified the departmental examination on the said date and, therefore, he was not notionally promoted w.e.f. 01.07.2001. However, cases of the applicant and the others were sent to the Board twice for consideration to grant relaxation in departmental examination but the Board did not grant the relaxation on both the occasions vide its letters dated 06.06.2012 and 14.10.2014. The applicant was promoted to the grade of Inspector against the DPC for the year 2014-15 held on 20.06.2014. The applicant was considered for the grade of Inspector in the review DPC for the year 2002-03 as at that time he had not completed the required qualifying service and hence was not eligible for promotion to the grade of Inspector.
6. In his rejoinder, learned counsel for the applicant reiterates his contentions.
7. We have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the entire documents on record.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant presses the claim of relaxation for the applicant for four months so that he could be eligible for promotion to the post of UDC in the DPC held for 2001-02 by being considered to have qualified the departmental examination on the crucial date i.e. 01.01.2001. The result was declared on 01.05.2001. He also claims that the Board vide its letter dated 03.11.2006 had issued instructions to the CCE, Jaipur that the officers who passed the departmental examination on 09.01.2002 in the exam held in July, 2001 may be treated as having passed the examination on the crucial date i.e. 01.01.2002. Whether the benefit of the aforesaid letter dated 03.11.2006 was extended to anybody or not is not available. The respondents argue that the case of the applicant was sent to the Board for considering him for the relaxation but the same was rejected twice by the Board. The Page 4 of 5 MADHU KUMARI O.A./1208/2015 Review Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted in the year 2011 for the vacancies in the year 2001-02. Granting relaxation to the effect as claimed by the applicant, especially after a lapse of nearly ten years, is purely a decision which is an administrative domain of the department in which it has to take into consideration the various consequences and administrative inconveniences that might arise in the event of grant of such a relaxation. Thus, it is a policy matter which is beyond the scope of this Tribunal to interfere with and this Tribunal does not find any reason to intervene in the issue already settled by the Board.
9. Accordingly, the O.A. stands dismissed. All associated M.A.s also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Mohan Pyare) ( Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (A) Member (J)
Madhu
Page 5 of 5
MADHU KUMARI