Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Om Prakash Vimal vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 15 July, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI TA No.347/2009 (W.P. [C] 18046/2006) New Delhi, this the 15th day of July, 2009 HONBLE MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J) HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) Shri Om Prakash Vimal S/o Late Shri Ram Resident of the Address: C-7/133, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110 053. Petitioner By Advocate: Shri Tarun Sharma. Versus 1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through its Commissioner, Having Office at: Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi-110 006. Respondents By Advocate: Mrs. Anita Gupta with Ms. Himani Jadom. ORDER (ORAL)
By Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) Writ Petition No.18046/2006 was filed by the petitioner in the Honble High Court of Delhi for seeking the relief that look after charge as Executive Engineer should be given to him as per the seniority and in accordance with the Recruitment Rules (hereinafter referred to as RRs). The Writ Petition has been transferred to the Tribunal in view of Notification dated 1.12.2008 and renumbered as TA 347/2009.
2. It is submitted by the petitioner that in the seniority list of Assistant Engineer, petitioner figures at Sl. No.362 (page 16). He has diploma and degree both whereas Shri S.C. Gautam is at Sl.No. 426 (page 23) that is much below the petitioner, yet he has been given look after charge of Executive Engineer vide order dated 24.11.2006 ignoring the petitioner. Similarly Shri Krishan was though above the petitioner in the seniority list being at Sl.No.361 (page 16), but since he was diploma holder and had not completed 10 years of service as AE, he could have been given the look after charge because as per RRs for the post of Executive Engineer (page 9 at 10) in Col.11, it is clearly mentioned as below:-
In case of recruitment by Promotion/Deputation/Transfer grades from which Promotion deputation transfer to be made. Promotion Asstt. Engineer graduate with 5 years service in the grade, Diploma holding with 10 years service in the grade failing which by deputation/transfer or officers holding analogous post in CPWD or in other Central Government (period of deputation ordinarily not exceeding 8 years).
3. In nutshell his grievance is that even look after charge should be given as per seniority and in accordance with rules otherwise it would deprive him of his further promotion in time because in MCD people are given promotion from ad hoc to ad hoc and even the period of look after is taken into consideration while considering for further promotions. He had, therefore, no other option but to approach the court.
4. Respondents have opposed this OA. They have stated applicant was employed in MCD in SC category since 17.3.1981 and fulfills the eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer as per the Recruitment Rules. However, for giving the look after charge, there is no provision in the RRs. Considering the seniority and no. of vacancies in compliance of the order dated 7.11.2006 passed by the Honble High Court of Delhi in CWP No.4123-26/2005 titled as Sandeep Malhotra and Others Vs. MCD and Others, the petitioner could not be assigned the look after charge. In any case look after charge is only a stop gap arrangement in the exigency of the work in their own pay scale without any extra remuneration, therefore, this petition may be dismissed.
5. We have heard both the counsel. The judgment of the Honble High Court of Delhi has not been placed on record by either side. However, respondents have not disputed the fact that Shri S.C. Gautam and Shri Krishan had been given the look after charge of Executive Engineer on 24.11.2006 while denying the same to the applicant, who is admittedly senior to Shri S.C. Gautam. It is also not disputed by the respondents that Shri Krishan had not completed 10 years of service as Assistant Engineer when he was given the look after charge which is the pre-requisite for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, therefore, respondents were expected to explain why petitioner was not given the look after charge when he was eligible. Interestingly, the only defence taken by the respondents is as under:-
the RRs do not provide the eligibility criteria for assignment of Look After Charge. However, considering the seniority and no. of vacancies, in compliance of the order dated 7.11.2006 of the Honble High Court of Delhi in CWP No. 3123-26/2005 titled as Sandeep Malhotra & Ors. Vs. MCD and Others, the petitioner could not be assigned Look After Charge to the said post.
and no remuneration is paid on look after charge. We are still unable to understand how could a senior be left out for giving look after charge when nothing adverse has been commented against the petitioner and all the three persons viz. the petitioner, Shri S.C. Gautam and Shri Sri Krishan belong to SC category. Although it is only look after charge, but in MCD it is seen, the practice is that the officers are first given look after charge or promoted on ad hoc basis and then they are given further promotions from that stage by computing the service rendered by them in look after charge or ad hoc basis. In these circumstances, even though petitioner has also been given the look after charge subsequently vide order dated 22.4.2007 but his grievance seems to be valid because Shri S.C. Gautam was junior to him and the other person Shri Sri Krishan were given the look after charge prior to him even though Shri Sri Krishan did not fulfill the requirement of the RRs at the time when they were given the look after charge. In these circumstances his apprehension and grievance seems to be valid.
6. Even though look after charge is given in the same pay scale without any extra remuneration but by the passage of time these persons may get a march over the petitioner by virtue of their having been given look after charge prior to the petitioner. Respondents have not stated anything against the petitioner to show why he could not have been given the look after charge earlier. After all the very object of maintaining seniority list in the department is to give promotions even on ad hoc basis as per the seniority list, unless there is something adverse against an officer on the basis of which, he can be denied the ad hoc promotion or look after charge. Since nothing adverse has been contended by the respondents against the petitioner, therefore, in all fairness, he should have been considered along with his juniors for giving the look after charge on 24.11.2006. Now that petitioner has also been given the look after charge vide order dated 22.4.2007 which order has been placed on record, the only thing which respondents have to keep in mind is that at the time of next promotion to the post of Executive Engineer on regular basis, the petitioner should not be put to any disadvantage on the ground that he was given the look after charge on a subsequent date than his juniors. We cannot quash the order dated 24.11.2006 because those persons have not been impleaded as party by the petitioner in this petition. However, as observed above, respondents should take these facts into consideration at the time of convening of DPC for regular promotion to the post of Executive Engineer.
7. With the above direction, this TA stands disposed off. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) (Mrs. Meera Chhibber)
Member (A) Member (J)
Rakesh