Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Vinod Kumar Sethi S/O Darshan Lal Sethi vs Union Of India Through on 29 April, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI O.A. NO.1084/2009 This the 29th day of April, 2008 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE SHRI SHAILENDRA PANDEY, MEMBER (A) Vinod Kumar Sethi S/O Darshan Lal Sethi, R/O E-78, Arya Samaj Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. Applicant ( By Shri M. K. Bhardwaj, Advocate ) Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi. 2. The Chief of Army Staff, Army HQ, DHQ, New Delhi. 3. Director General (EME.CIV), Sena Bhawan, New Delhi. 4. Commandant, 505 Army Workshop, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi. 5. Shri Gurmail singh, Serving as Machinist, 505 Army Workshop, Delhi Cantt. Respondents O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
Arguments were heard in this case on 24.4.2009 and judgment was reserved. It is primarily the case of the applicant that he has been shown junior to one Gurmail Singh, arrayed as 5th respondent herein, whereas the applicant ought to have been shown senior to him. From the impugned order that came to be passed pursuant to directions issued by this Tribunal in the earlier OA filed by the applicant, we find that a finding of fact has been recorded that none of the juniors of the applicant in his trade group 2(d), i.e., Machinist, Tool Maker, Prec Grinder, Turner and Mil Wright, have been placed senior to him in the present seniority list. Preceding what has been mentioned above, it has been observed in the impugned order as follows:
WHEREAS, after going through the seniority list as on 18 Jun 2004 and 09 Mar 2007 tradesman of trade group 2(d) who have passed supervisory trade test for promotion to CM-II, it is found that T No 2234, Shri R Hari Krishna, Machinist of 515 Army Base Workshop who was next to the applicant in the seniority list dated 18 Jun 2004 is still junior to him in the seniority list dated 09 Mar 2007 The applicant, it would appear from the pleadings, has questioned the seniority list roll as on 1.8.2006 placed on records as Annexure A-2 at page 15 of the paper book. Gurmail Singh in the said seniority roll has indeed been shown at serial number 3, whereas the applicant has been shown at serial number 28. There is no averment in the OA with regard to seniority lists of 2004 and 2007 mentioned in the impugned order. We are of the considered view that if a finding of fact based on records, and in the present case, based on the seniority lists, has come to be made in the impugned order, an averment challenging the said finding has to be made in the pleadings. It will be difficult for this Tribunal to appreciate the controversy unless the seniority lists of 2004 and 2007 are placed on records or an averment is made to the effect that no such seniority lists exist and the factual position depicted in the impugned order is wrong. We also find from records of the case that in the legal notice issued by the applicant dated 12.5.2008, there is no complaint made by the applicant with regard to his placement in the seniority list. In yet another legal notice dated 13.3.2008, likewise, there is no averment or complaint made that any person junior to him, and in particular, Gurmail Singh, has been made senior to him. Normally, we would have dismissed this Application, but showing some indulgence in the matter, we dismiss the same, but with liberty to the applicant to file fresh Application on the same cause of action, with proper pleadings accompanied by proper documents. Surely, the applicant cannot complain about the order dated 2.11.2008 which has been impugned, as it is clearly observed therein that no person junior to the applicant has been made senior to him. If it was to be the case of the applicant that in fact and reality, someone junior to him has been assigned higher seniority, then at least, he has to place on records seniority lists of 2004 and 2007 based upon which a finding has been recorded in the impugned order that no person junior to the applicant has been assigned higher seniority.
2. With the observations and directions as mentioned above, this OA is dismissed with liberty to the applicant to file fresh Application.
( Shailendra Pandey ) ( V. K. Bali )
Member (A) Chairman
/as/