Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Mr.Ranjith Jacob Koshy vs Union Of India on 17 August, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No.834 of 2010
Wednesday, this the 17th day of August, 2011
CORAM:
Hon'ble Dr. K.B.S Rajan, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Ms.K Noorjehan, Administrative Member
Mr.Ranjith Jacob Koshy
Additional Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs
Office of the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs
Central Revenue Buildings
I.S Press Road, Cochin - 682 018 ...... Applicant
(By Advocate - Mr.C.S.G Nair)
V e r s u s
1. Union of India
Represented by its Secretary
Department of Revenue
North Block, New Delhi - 110 001
2. Chairman
Central Board of Excise & Customs
North Block, New Delhi - 110 001
3. Member (P&V)
Central Board of Excise & Customs
North Block, New Delhi - 110 001
4. Union Public Service Commission
represented by its Chairman
Dholpur House, New Delhi ........ Respondents
(Bt advocate - Mr.Sunil Jacob Jose, SCGSC for R 1-3 &
Mr.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil (R4) )
This Original Application having been heard on 04.08.2011, the Tribunal on
17.08.2011 delivered the following :
O R D E R
By Hon'ble Dr.K.B.S Rajan, Judicial Member -
1. The applicant joined service as Inspector of Central Excise & Customs, Cochin on 14.11.1972 and became Superintendent of Central Excise & Customs (Group B) in June 1984. Vide Annexure A-3 order dated 19.10.1995, he was promoted on ad-hoc basis to officiate in the grade of Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Grade VI of the IC &CE Service - Group A). Vide Annexure A-4 he was offered with senior time scale on adhoc basis with effect from 19.10.1999 and vide Annexure A-5 order dated 13 Oct 2006, he was promoted from the grade of Dy Commissioner (Grade 5) of the Indian Revenue Services (Customs and Central Excise) to the grade of Joint Commissioner (Grade IV) on adhoc basis. The next position that the applicant could be offered is Non Functional Selection Grade (NFSG for short) for which the minimum number of years of Group A service is 13 years. The applicant raised his claim on completion of 13 years of service from the date he was promoted to the post of Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure A-3.
2. Vide notification dated 30 July 2009 (Annexure A-9) as many as 144 group A officers were granted NFSG in the pay band IV with grade pay of Rs.8700/-. This grant of NFSG was made subject to out come of certain Court cases pending before some Tribunal/Court. The applicant, not having found his name in the aforesaid Annexure A-9 notification, moved Annexure A-11 representation and requested for awarding of NFSG on adhoc basis. This was followed by representation dated 07.10.09 vide Annexure A-12. As therewas no response, the applicant has moved this O.A seeking the following reliefs.
(i) To call for the records leading upto the issue of Annexure A-9 and direct the respondents to grant the applicant NFSG with effect from 30.07.2009 the date on which his juniors were granted the grade, with all consequential benefits;
(ii) To direct the respondents to grant him all arrears of pay and allowances with effect from 30.07.2009 in NFSG as Joint Commissioner/Commissioner discharge same functions and no higher responsibility is involved;
(iii) To grant such other relief or reliefs which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case;
(iv) To award the cost of these proceedings to the applicant.
3. Respondents have contested the Original Application. They have stated that the applicant was promoted to Group A service vide office order No. 225/95 dated 19.10.1995. Vide Board office Notification No.01/2010 dated 19.01.2010 the applicant was granted non functional selection grade. As regards non- consideration of the application for NFSG vide Annexure A-9, the respondents have stated that it was decided in principle to consider grant of NFSG as per 2005 seniority list of Group A IRS (C&CE). There were 149 additional posts which could be operated as on 01.01.2009 at Additional Commissioner level. Since grant of Non-Functional Selection Grade is vacancy based, it was decided to consider eligible officers up to 1995 Batch for grant of Non-Functional Selection grade against the 149 vacancies available as on 01.01.2009 by holding a Departmental Screening Committee. It may be stated that seniority list of Group A IRS (C&CE) 2005 contains both Direct Recruited and promotee officers regularized up to panel year 1996. The applicant did not find place among the officers regularised up to panel year 1996. Therefore, he does not figure in 2005 seniority list. He may be placed in subsequent panel year as and when the regularisation of officer is taken up by the department with UPSC for drawing up subsequent panel years. He was junior to officers who were to be considered by the DSC held on 20.07.2009 & 22.07.2009. Accordingly, his name was not placed before the Departmental Screening Committee for consideration for grant of NFSG. Cases of eligible officers who were senior to the applicant belonging to 1994 & 1995 Batches only, as per the seniority list of Group A IRA (C&CE) 2005, were placed before the Departmental Screening Committee held on 20.07.2009 & 22.07.2009. Later, a Departmental Screening Committee (DSC) was convened on 07.01.2010 to consider 1996 Batch, DR of 1997 batch and promotee officers who had completed 13 years in Group A as on 01.01.2010 and were in JAG. The applicant has completed 13 years of service in Group A and was eligible as per this criteria, his case was placed before the Departmental Screening Committee held on 07.01.2010 and accordingly he was granted Non-Functional Selection Grade vide Notification No.1/2010 dated 19.01.2010.
4. The applicant has filed his rejoinder in which he has stated that the seniority of Group A officers being under dispute, all the officers who had rendered qualifying service should have been considered by the DPC.
5. Counsel for the applicant vehementally argued that as per the civil list (Annexure A-20) the applicant's name figures in at serial No.135 and he has not been awarded NFSG though he was eligible. Instead the respondents have promoted a number of Group A officers who are comparitively junior to the applicant. The applicant's position in the seniority could be anywhere between 1995 or even earlier. And since he has already retired, in the event of his being granted NFSG along with others in the Annexure A-9 list he would gain one increment and nothing else. He has also submitted that whereas under RTI Act, information provided for by the respondents indicated 150 posts, admittedly NFSG was conferred upon only 144 officers.
6. Counsel for the respondents submitted that as per the minutes of DPC, seniority of 2005, which is not under challenge, was followed in preparing the panel for NFSG. The instances of promotion referred by the applicant related to officers belonging to 1995 Batch on regular basis. Until 1996, the applicant could not figure in the list.
7. The seniority list and DPC proceedings furnished by the respondents along with other documents have been perused and the arguments heard. The DPC has narrated in detail as to the Batches which have to be considered and the total number of vacancies (149). It has dealt with at length as to which seniority list is to be followed and ultimately decided to take in to account 2005 seniority list. In fact there is no difference between 2004 and 05 seniority lists. And, in the said seniority list which covered up to 1996 batch, the name of the applicant did not figure. In other words, who ever had been offered with NFSG were seniors to the applicant, their regularization in Group A service having taken place earlier than that of the applicant. Eventhough the applicant has cited the case of one Mr. Mohammad Ali on the basis of Annexure A-20 civil list, respondents contended that civil list is not followed for seniority.
8. If the applicant could not come with the consideration zone which is based on 30% of the posts (149vacancies) non consideration of his case for NFSG would not amount to violation of the right for consideration. As per the respondents those who have been offered NFSG are all junior to the applicant. The applicants initial appointment in Group A in 1995 being only provisional, the exact date from which he was regularly positioned in Group A post has not been spelt out by the applicant. The applicant already has been granted NFSG with effect from 2010.
9. We do not find any illegality in the issue of Annexure A-9 notification. Action taken by the respondents in promoting the applicant to NFSG scale with effect from 2010 appears to be in order. In view of the above, the original application fails and it is dismissed.
(Dated this the 17th day of August, 2011)
(Ms.K Noorjehan) (Dr.K.B.S Rajan)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
sv