Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Inder Prakash vs Union Of India Through on 2 August, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH : NEW DELHI O.A. NO.2145/2010 New Delhi, this the 2nd day of AUG. 2011 CORAM: HONBLE MR. G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MR. KHUSHIRAM, MEMBER (A) Shri Inder Prakash, AMM, N. Rly, H.Q. Office, Baroda House, New Delhi R/o 172-B/4, Rly. Colony, Basant Lane, Pharganj Ganj, New Delhi - 55 Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Malaya Chand) Versus Union of India Through: 1. General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi 110 002 2. Chief Operating Manager, H.Q. Office Baroda House, N. Railway, New Delhi 3. Chief Commercial Manager, H.Q. Office, Baroda House, N. Railway, New Delhi 4. Chief Personal Officer, H.Q. Office, Baroda House, N. Railway, New Delhi 5. Dy. Chief Personal Officer/R.P., H.Q. Office, Baroda House, N. Railway, New Delhi Respondents (By Advocate: None ) O R D E R
By Khushiram, Member (A)::
The applicant is a Group B cadre Officer of Northern Railways in the grade of Rs.7,500/- to Rs.11,500/-. After qualifying the departmental test, the applicant claims to be the senior-most among the SC category Junior Scale Group B Officers. On 30.1.2009 a letter was issued promoting the Group B Junior Scale Officers to Senior Scale Officer in which the applicant was deliberately ignored, though out of the 5 posts, one was meant for SC, one for ST and three unreserved. In the roster system point no.24 was meant for SC. Subsequently these vacancies were increased to 10 thereby increasing the vacancies meant for SC to 2. The applicant claims that he had not been considered for promotion against point no.24 even though he was the senior most SC officer in the cadre. The applicant sought information under the RTI vide representation dated 19.5.2009 wherein he was informed as under:
(i) The point could not be filled up owing to non-availability of reserved community officer within the seniority.
(ii) Despite the fact that roster point No.24 & 30 were kept reserved in favour of SC community officers. However, promotion to Sr. Scale on adhoc basis is made in order to seniority. Unless officers senior in seniority are promoted first, the officers belonging to reserved community who are lower in seniority cannot be considered for such promotion by ignoring his seniors available in the Select List.
2. The applicant claims that the Respondents had admitted that points No.24 and 30 were meant for SC officers, but even then no SC candidates were considered for ad hoc promotion. The applicant stated that had the roster points been adhered to, being the senior-most SC officer, he would have been promoted. Citing the example of one Shri Parminder Singh, ACM/UMB, a Group B junior scale officer from the SC category, who was promoted to senior scale officer by ignoring the junior scale officers senior to him in the seniority list viz. Shri Sajal Kumar Sinha, Shri Arun Shankar etc. who were promoted later on in January, 2009. The applicant had represented on 13.2.2009, 4.9.2009, 24.12.2009 and 5.4.2010 to rectify this mistake but no action has been taken so far. Therefore, aggrieved by the in-action on the part of the respondents, the applicant has filed the present OA mainly to seek following reliefs:-
8.i) To direct the respondents to promote the applicant along with the others who have been promoted vide letter No.940-E/15-PT/55/EI dated 30.01.09 on the authority of roster base meant for the promotion of SC category officer and as per the recommendation of DPC for promotion of two points for SC officer along with all consequential benefits.
(ii) To set aside and quash the impugned order of promotion of group B junior scale officer to senior scale officer vide letter No.940-E/15-PT/55/EI dated 31.01.09.
(iii) Any other relief which the Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper also be granted to the applicant.
3. The Respondents have contested the claim of the applicant by filing a detailed counter affidavit stating that the applicant has suppressed and concealed many relevant facts, which go to the root of the matter. The OA is time barred and thus liable to be dismissed for delay and latches and a series of representation reportedly made by the applicant from time to time would not give him grounds for condonation of delay and thus enlarge the period of limitation. They have also stated that as per the instructions in vogue, Group B Officers on rendering six years of regular Group B service are promoted to Senior Scale purely on ad hoc basis. For the purpose the vacancies for the period of one year commencing from 1st July to 30th June of next year are taken into consideration. Admittedly there were 10 vacancies for the assessment period from 1.7.2008 to 30.6.2009 in respect of Group B Officers of Traffic Transportation (Commercial) Deptt. to their promotion in Senior Scale on ad hoc basis.
4. DPC had been convened and 8 persons were placed on the select list. Two posts were kept reserved in favour of SC community Officers, hence the name of Shri Inder Prakash (applicant) who much below in seniority position, was picked up and kept in the select list for promoting persons to Sr. Scale 2 posts (1 ST, 1 SC) were kept reserved for want of suitable candidates. All the departments consist of a number of work charged posts which are created to meet the emergent requirement chargeable to specific provisions. As per records promotion of officers upto the name of G.P. Singh were made in Sr. Scale on ad hoc basis. However, the remaining 2 Group B Officers of TT & C Deptt. available on select list (1 SC, 1 UR) could not be promoted owing to non-availability of currency of the work charged posts.
5. The Respondents have submitted that the applicant is under wrong impression that promotions are made in accordance with the roster points, but the fact remains that promotions are actually made in order of panel position available on select list. As per records, no junior to the applicant has been promoted as yet in Sr. Scale on ad hoc basis. These promotions are made as per administrative requirements and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The Railway Administration is keen to extend the benefits of promotion to its employees/officers at the relevant point of time when they become due for such promotion subject to the requirements attached for making such promotion. The applicant was placed on the select list against SC quota and has been promoted on ad hock basis to Senior Scale and has taken over that charge on 7.12.2010.
6. The post based roster register is maintained to assess the availability of the officers in the cadre belonging to reserved community and applying reservation to the extent of unfilled roster points on the roster register in favour of reserved community officers. The applicant is under a wrong impression that promotions are made in accordance with roster points, which is not correct. The promotions are made on the basis of seniority position. The post based roster is a mechanism to identify the posts reserved for SC/ST candidates and admittedly no person junior to the applicant had been promoted. It is also submitted that 10 vacancies were assessed for the assessment period 1.7.2008 to 30.6.2009, out of which two vacancies were meant for SC and 1 for ST candidates and only those who had completed six years of service were considered for promotion. Thus only 8 officers including 1 SC had fulfilled the eligibility condition. The 8 officers promoted included 7 general candidates and 1 SC candidate. It is further submitted that the SC/ST candidates promoted by virtue of their seniority position may be treated to have consumed the reserved point and the SC/ST candidates who have been promoted in excess of reservation quota will be adjusted against the reserved vacancies arising in future. Since the vacancies fluctuate on year to year basis on account of availability of work charged posts, officers on deputation not moving out etc., therefore, even the persons in the panel are not promoted during the currency of the panel. In this case the applicant as well as senior unreserved persons available in the panel could not be promoted due to non-availability of vacancies. The DPC formed for the period 1.7.2004 to 30.6.2005 and 1.7.2005 to 30.6.2006, the vacancies had been assigned as per details given here under:
Assessment Period SC ST UR Total Remarks 01.07.04 to 30.06.05 02 01 11 14 -
01.07.05 to 30.06.06 01 Nil 05 06 -
Officers promoted:
Assessment Period 01.07.04 to 30.06.05 02 01 11 14 -
01.07.05 to 30.06.06 Nil Nil 05 05 1 reserved post was kept vacant for Sh. S.L. Sharma (SC) who was expected to return from deputation.
7. It is also stated by the Respondents that promotions are made against regular posts so as to avoid stoppage of pay or reversion to lower grade and promotions are made in the order of the seniority position on the select list and not in view of roster points. The applicant had been considered against the SC point falling on roster register and hence his name was picked up ignoring his seniors in the general category available in the seniority list and was placed on the bottom of the select list. For the period from 1.7.2008 to 30.6.2009, two vacancies for SC and 1 for ST were available. There were only one SC and 2 ST candidates, who were fulfilling the eligibility criteria of six years regular service and were considered accordingly and one post of SC and two posts of ST were kept vacant. It is submitted that in the panel of 8 persons so formed for the assessment period 1.7.2008 to 30.6.2009, the name of the applicant was at the bottom. During the said period 2 vacancies for SC and 1 vacancy for ST were available. There were only 1 SC and 2 ST candidates, who were fulfilling the criteria of 6 years service and were considered accordingly 1 post of SC and 1 post of ST were kept vacant due to non-availability of eligible candidate. For the assessment period 1.6.2008 to 30.6.2009, 2 ST officers viz. S/Shri C.L. Meena, ACMC/Claims and B.S. Meena, ATM/HQ were promoted as unreserved candidates, as they were senior in the select list. The applicant as well as unreserved one senior person available in the panel could not be promoted due to non-availability of vacancies.
8. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that out of the 10 vacancies against the reserved vacancy (1 for SC and 1 for ST), the applicant should have been considered by the respondents. He has also explained that normally UPSC holds the DPC but in case of ad hoc promotions, the requirement of the presence of UPSC representative is not required. It is the ad hoc promotion for which the applicant is claiming consideration in this OA.
9. We have given consideration to the arguments made and perused the material on record before us. The applicant was promoted to Group B post on 30.1.2009 and it requires a residency of six years service as Group B before one is considered for promotion to the next grade. The applicant is claiming consideration for promotion against the vacancies assessed for the period from 1.7.2008 to 30.6.2009. Since the applicant was appointed in Group B cadre in 2001, he had completed the requisite six years residency as Group B Officer. As per the vacancy position given in the preceding paragraph, the panel of 8 persons was formed for the aforesaid period and the name of the applicant was at the bottom of the list. It is not understood as to how the claim of the applicant was ignored once he had completed the eligibility condition as SC category Officer. Though the orders were issued subsequently on 7.12.2010 promoting the applicant to Senior Scale on ad hoc basis, but this consideration could have been given to him as on 30.1.2009 as well. We feel that the action of the respondents is not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, we direct the respondents to reconsider the matter and in case the applicant is found eligible for promotion as on 30.1.2009, he be given due promotion from that date when reportedly other similarly places Group B Junior Scale Officers were promoted to Senior Scale ignoring the applicant. In case the applicant is found eligible for promotion, he will be entitled to all consequential benefits including the retiral benefits. Since the applicant has not impleaded the persons likely to be affected in case his prayer for quashing the order dated 30.1.2009 is accepted, therefore, the same cannot be done. With these observations, the OA is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to comply with the directions within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
(KHUSHIRAM) (G. GEORGE PARACKEN) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) /pkr/