Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Harsh Kumar Mehta vs Union Of India Through on 17 January, 2014
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-4014/2012
MA-3399/2012
Reserved on : 07.01.2014.
Pronounced on :17.01.2014.
Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
Sh. Harsh Kumar Mehta,
Presently posted as Dy. Director,
Employee State Insurance Corporation
Headquarter Office,
CIG Road, New Delhi. . Applicant
(through Sh. Satpal Singh, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through
Its Secretary,
Ministry of Labour,
Govt. of India,
Shram Shakti Bhawan,
New Delhi.
2. The Director General,
Employee State Insurance Corporation
Headquarter Office,
CIG Road, New Delhi. . Respondents
(through Ms. Rekha Palli, Advocate)
O R D E R
Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) Following relief has been sought in this O.A.:-
(a) Pass an order or direction to the Respondents Department to grant regular promotion to the applicant to the post of Dy. Director from the date of occurrence of the vacancies i.e. 5.3.2004, not from the date of holding of DPC i.e. 29.3.2007 and further
(b) Pass an order or direction directing the Respondents to consider the name of the applicant for promotion to the post of Joint Director by holding Departmental Promotion for approving and recommending the name of the applicant to the said post under the existing Recruitment Rules as of date with all consequential benefits.
(c) pass any other and further order which this Honble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. During the course of the arguments, applicants counsel conceded that as far as Relief-(a) is concerned the same is time barred. Hence, he has himself agreed not to press the same. Thus, this O.A. has been heard only with regard to relief claimed in clauses-(b) and (c) of the O.A.
3. The grievance of the applicant is that he has been denied promotion as Joint Director due to inaction of the respondents. According to him, the applicant joined the respondents as Branch Manager Grade-II in 1980. Gradually, he was promoted as Asstt. Director and subsequently as Dy. Director on ad hoc basis against existing vacancies on 09.03.2004. On 27.03.2007 he was promoted as regular Dy. Director. Admittedly, five years of regular service as Dy. Director is required for promotion as Joint Director. The applicant made several representations to his department to consider him for promotion as Joint Director by first ante dating his promotion as Dy. Director and then promoting him as Joint Director. Since no reply was forthcoming from the respondents, he has filed this O.A. before us.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant ought to have been promoted as Dy. Director on regular basis in the year 2004 itself. However, the respondents did not hold any DPC for regularizing him as such despite existence of vacancies. Similarly, the DPCs were not held for promoting eligible Dy. Directors as Joint Directors for several years despite the fact that there were several vacancies. The respondents, therefore, erred in not adhering the schedule laid down for holding regular DPCs. He was, therefore, entitled to promotion from the date of occurrence of vacancy as laid down in the case of UOI Vs. N.K. Banerjee, (1997) SCC. Learned counsel further argued that it is fundamental right of the applicant to be considered for promotion as laid down in the case of D.S. Mahra Vs. UOI, 2003(104)DLT (DB). He contended that the respondents were delaying DPCs on the ground that Recruitment Rules were under amendment and that the old Recruitment Rules had become inoperative.
5. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the applicant was not promoted as Joint Director as he had retired in November, 2012 before completing five years of regular service as Dy. Director to become eligible for promotion as Joint Director.
6. As mentioned above, the applicant had given up his prayer for ante dating his promotion as Dy. Director because it had become time barred. Thus, the applicant has to be treated as regularly promoted as Dy. Director only on 27.03.2007. He was, therefore, not eligible to be considered for promotion as Joint Director for the vacancy year 2012-2013 as on 01.01.2012, which is the cut off date as per DoP&T instructions, he had not completed five years of regular service as Dy. Director. He could be considered only for vacancy years 2013-2014 but he had retired in November, 2012 and therefore was not available for promotion in that vacancy year.
6.1 As regards the respondents delaying the DPC on the ground that Recruitment Rules were under amendment, we have already given a direction to the respondents in OA-4167/2012 by our judgment dated 29.10.2013, the operative para of which reads as follows:-
4.4 Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, this O.A. is allowed. We quash the letter dated 22.06.2012 of the respondents and direct them to hold regular DPCs for promotions to the post of Joint Directors as well as Directors without waiting for the Notification of new Recruitment Rules. They will hold all the DPCs which have become over due within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. They will also pass appropriate orders regarding regularization of ad hoc service of the applicants as joint Directors after such DPCs have been held. No costs. However, in the instant case we find that on account of the fact that the applicant does not possess the requisite service, even if the DPCs are now held he will not be eligible for consideration.
7. Under these circumstances, this O.A. is devoid of merit and is dismissed. No costs.
(Shekhar Agarwal) (G. George Paracken)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Vinita/