Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Ch Suryanarayana vs National Institute Of Rural ... on 17 September, 2018
1 OA 438/2012
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH: HYDERABAD
Original Application No.438 of 2012
Reserved: 10.09.2018
Order pronounced: 17. 09.2018
Between:
1. Ch. Suryanarayana, S/o. Gopala Krishnamurthy,
Aged about 59 years, Stenographer Gr. I,
National Institute of Rural Development,
Rajenderanagar, Hyderabad - 500030.
2. V. Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o. V. Raghuram,
Aged about 54 years, Stenographer Gr. I,
National Institute of Rural Development,
Rajenderanagar, Hyderabad - 500030.
3. A. Premkumar, S/o. late A. Devaiah,
Aged about 52 years, Stenographer Gr. I,
National Institute of Rural Development,
Rajenderanagar, Hyderabad - 500030.
4. G. Srinivasulu, S/o. G. Rangarao,
Aged about 53 years, Stenographer Gr. I,
National Institute of Rural Development,
Rajenderanagar, Hyderabad - 500030.
5. P. Sudalaimani, S/o. late P. Ponnusamy,
Aged about 57 years, Stenographer Gr.II,
National Institute of Rural Development,
Rajenderanagar, Hyderabad - 500030.
6. K. Krishnakumari, W/o. K.V. Srihari Sastry,
Aged about 55 years, Stenographer Gr. II,
National Institute of Rural Development,
Rajenderanagar, Hyderabad - 500030.
7. Ch. Bharathi, W/o. Ch. Ravindrababu,
Aged about 58 years, Stenographer Gr. II,
National Institute of Rural Development,
Rajenderanagar, Hyderabad - 500030.
8. Syed Isaq Hussain, S/o. late Syed Faiq Hussain,
Aged about 48 years, Stenographer Gr. II,
National Institute of Rural Development,
Rajenderanagar, Hyderabad - 500030.
... Applicants
And
2 OA 438/2012
1. Union of India, represented by
Chairman, Executive Council,
National Institute of Rural Development and
Hon. Union Minister for Rural Development,
Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. Director-General,
National Institute of Rural Development,
Rajendranagar, Hyderabad - 500030.
3. Registrar,
National Institute of Rural Development,
Rajendranagar, Hyderabad - 500030.
4. Assistant Registrar (Estt.)
National Institute of Rural Development,
Rajendranagar, Hyderabad - 500030.
5. Smt. P. Padmasri, W/o. P. Subbarao,
Aged about 44 years, Stenographer Gr. I,
National Institute of Rural Development,
Rajenderanagar, Hyderabad - 500030.
6. Shri M. Balaji, S/o. Shri Venkatasubbaiah,
Aged about 49 years, Stenographer Gr. I,
National Institute of Rural Development,
Rajenderanagar, Hyderabad - 500030.
7. Shri P. Srinivasa Murthy, S/o. late Nagabhushanam,
Aged about 52 years, Stenographer Gr. I,
National Institute of Rural Development,
Rajenderanagar, Hyderabad - 500030.
... Respondents
Counsel for the Applicant ... Dr. A. Raghu Kumar
Counsel for the Respondents ... Mrs. K. Rajitha, SC for NIRD
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. B.V. Sudhakar ... Member (Admn.)
Hon'ble Mr. Swarup Kumar Mishra ... Member (Judl.)
ORDER
{As per Hon'ble Mr. B.V. Sudhakar, Member (Admn.)} The OA is filed against the provisional interse seniority list of stenographers Gr-II notified by the respondents on 22.8.2007. 2 The broad contours of the case are that the applicants are working as stenographers Gr II from 16.7.1996 and the unofficial respondents as 3 OA 438/2012 Stenographers Gr II from 27.1.1997. In the seniority list published by the respondents on 1.12.1989, 30.11.1991, 31.8.2004 the applicants were shown senior to the unofficial respondents. However, the scene became topsy-turvy when the provisional seniority list of stenographer Gr-II was published on 31.7.2007 wherein the unofficial respondents were shown senior to the applicants. The developments that led to this climax are the contents of this OA, which begin with efforts made by the respondents to alleviate the stagnation of the stenographers in lower scales, by introducing Career Advancement Scheme for Gr C and Gr D staff vide Lr. Dt. 11.2.1994 . According to this scheme, employees who have not been promoted on regular basis even after completion of 10 years of service in the same post in which they are directly recruited are eligible for consideration for grant of next higher scale in situ which is purely personal by temporary upgradation of the basic post, without any change in the status, nature of duties and basic designation. The promotion to next higher scale under the scheme will be allowed after due process of promotion on basis of seniority cum fitness on the recommendations of the duly constituted Departmental Promotions Committee and with the approval of the appointing authority. On 27.1.1997 the unofficial respondents who are junior most to the applicants were regularly promoted as senior stenographers (Stenographers Grade-II). The applicants being naturally distressed made several representations and finally the respondents intimated vide lr dt 2.2.1998, that in pursuance of the orders of the Honorable High Court of A.P in WPMP No. 39616/97 in WP No. 30859/97, there is no provision to automatically re-designate Junior stenographers as Senior Stenographers, since it is not in accordance with the recruitment rules prescribed for the post. Aggrieved the applicants moved the High Court in WP No 8090 of 1988 and the verdict dt 13.9.2000 was: 4 OA 438/2012
" the petitioners are entitled for re-designation of their post but with a different identification so as to segregate this category from the cadre of regularly promoted stenographers. As and when they are promoted to the regular categories of stenographer Gr.II their identification gets erased and they swim into the channel of stenographers Gr-II. Under these circumstances the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the respondents shall grant the designation to petitioners as stenographers Gr-II with suitable identification to indicate that they are holding the post by virtue of the recommendations made by IWSU with effect from 12.6.1995 on which date the Executive Council of NIRD has approved. It is made clear that the petitioners are not eligible for other financial benefit and that they shall not claim seniority over the regularly promoted stenographers Gr -II or for any other higher promotions."
3. The saga of the applicants did not end here, they moved the Honorable High Court of A.P in writ appeal number 163 of 2001 and the respondents too in Writ Appeal No. 225 of 2001. As the matters were heating up in the Honorable High court, the respondents promoted the applicants as stenographers II with effect from 16.7.96 vide office order no 251 dt 28.6.2002, bringing in some cheer. Consequent to this development the Honorable High Court disposed of the writ appeals by observing that there was no merit in the two appeals. The applicants happiness was short-lived with the respondents putting out the provisional seniority list with unofficial respondents shown senior to applicants and seeking objections, if any. The applicants did object but of no avail and the seniority list was freezed as on 31.7.2007 vide memorandum dt 11.1.2008 quoting the judgments of the Honorable High Court. Therefore the applicants are now before this tribunal to redress their grievance which remained static.
4. The applicants contend that they were far senior to the unofficial respondents in the then junior stenographer grade. Their seniority was respected till 2004 but it has undergone a diabolic change in 2007 by the seniority list published on 31.7.2007. The applicants contend that they were regularly promoted as stenographer grade II w.e.f 16.7.1996 vide office order no 251 dt 5 OA 438/2012 28.6.2002. If this being so the applicants rank senior to the unofficial respondents as they now swim with the swimming gear of the retrospective date of seniority ie 16.7.1996 in the stenographer grade II. Not ranking them senior accordingly by the respondents is blatantly illegal .
5. The respondents state that the Carrier Advancement Scheme was only a financial up gradation with no change of duties and responsibilities. The Honorable High court Single Judge has observed that the applicants can be re- designated as Stenographer Grade-II in the context of the IWSU ( Internal Work Study Unit) and keep them in a separate category distinguishing them from those who are regularly promoted as stenographer grade II. The Honorable Judge did make it clear that due to this re-designation they are not entitled for any financial benefits nor can they claim seniority over the regularly promoted stenographers Gr-II. The respondents admit that they have made a mistake by promoting the applicants on 28.6.2002 with retrospective effect from 16.7.96. Realizing that this decision was against the judgment of the Honorable High court they rectified the mistake by showing the unofficial respondents senior as they were regularly promoted on 27.1.1997 ie prior to the date of considering the applicants for regular promotion on 26.8.2002. They contend and rightly so that they cannot go against the orders of the Honorable High Court and therefore the senior list dt 31.7.2007 is final. The respondents also stated that the applicants having agitated before the High Court on the issue and a verdict being pronounced they cannot come before this tribunal again.
6. Heard the ld counsel. The learned counsel for the applicants informed that they went to the High court aggrieved over the juniors being promoted and that the matter got deviated since they could not properly place the facts before the Honorable High court resulting in adjudication on re -designation. Hence they 6 OA 438/2012 are back to this Tribunal contesting that they should be promoted since they are far more senior to the unofficial respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents adhered to the pleadings scribed in the counter.
7. We in the tribunal gave a patient hearing to both the counsel and went through the intrinsic details of the case. The applicants were ranking senior to the unofficial respondents in the then Junior stenographers grade. This is a stark truth. Thereafter, the unofficial respondents after being found fit were regularly promoted to stenographer Grade -II through a properly constituted Departmental Promotion committee on 27.1.1997. The applicants moved the Honourable High Court where it was pronounced that the applicants be re-designated as stenographer -Gr-II and be kept as a separate category in view of the Career Advancement Scheme but shall not be eligible for any financial benefits or can they claim seniority over those who have been regularly promoted to the stenographer grade II. The respondents candidly admitted that they have grossly erred in promoting the applicants with retrospective effect from 16.7.96 vide order 251 dt 28.6.2002 since they were against the orders of the Honorable High Court. The mistake is a bonafide mistake and the respondents have every right to correct a mistake which they came to know of. Honorable Apex court observation in the matter of VSNL v. Ajit Kumar Kar, (2008) 11 SCC 591, reproduced hereunder, is apt and absolutely applicable in regard to a bonafide mistake:
"It is well settled that a bona fide mistake does not confer any right on any party and it can be corrected."
The error did happen and it has to be accepted in the context of facts deliberated in detail above. This tribunal cannot perpetuate the error by siding 7 OA 438/2012 with the applicants as held by the Honorable Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Rajkumar Sharma,(2006) 3 SCC 330:
Even if in some cases appointments have been made by mistake or wrongly that does not confer any right on another person. Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality, and if the State committed the mistake it cannot be forced to perpetuate the same mistake. (See Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P (1996) 7 SCC 426; Secy., Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain(1997) 1 SCC 35 ; State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann(1997) 3 SCC 321; Faridabad C.T. Scan Centre v. D.G., Health Services(1997) 7 SCC 752; Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh (1999) 3 SCC 494 ; State of Punjab v. Dr. Rajeev Sarwal(1999) 9 SCC 240 ; Yogesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT, Delhi(2003) 3 SCC 548; Union of India v. International Trading Co.(2003) 5 SCC 437 and Kastha Niwarak Grihnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. President, Indore Development Authority(2006) 2 SCC 604.)
8. Therefore in view of the foregoing the case of the applicant fails. The O.A is therefore dismissed with no order to costs.
(SWARUP KUMAR MISHRA) (B.V. SUDHAKAR)
MEMBER (JUDL.) MEMBER (ADMN.)
Dated, the 17th day of September, 2018
evr