Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri M.L. Chandna S/O Late Shri T.R. ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through Chief ... on 30 March, 2007
ORDER Shanker Raju, Member (J)
1. Applicant, who retired on 31.12.2005, as Foreman, has sought for following reliefs:
(i) to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the Applicant for the post of Lecturer or on the post of Foreman-Instructor in the scale of Rs. 2200-4000, as illegal, arbitrary and the same action may be quashed.
(ii) to direct the respondents to consider the case of the Applicant for the post of Lecturer/Foreman-Instructor in the scale of Rs. 2200-4000 from the due date, forthwith with all consequential benefits;
(iii) to pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.
2. Applicant, who joined as Foreman, possesses a Bachelor's Degree in Electronic and Telecommunication. The Madan Committee constituted on staff structure in Engineering Institutions, insofar as Engineering Colleges are concerned, recommended minimum rung as Lecturer but for Polytechnics, Lecturer has been recommended as the lowest formation of teaching facility whereas separate recommendations for work charged staff were also made.
3. In pursuance thereof, in the discipline of Mechanical Engineering the post of Foreman was upgraded to Instructor Foreman. As the request of applicant for upgradation of the post of Foreman to the Lecturer or Foreman Instructor has been turned down in 2000, a decision of the Tribunal in Gurdev Kumar v. Govt. of National Territory of Delhi and Ors. decided on 24.8.2004, has been placed reliance by applicant through MA-1968/2006, seeking condonation of delay on the ground that on acceptance of the Madan Committee's recommendations by the Government of India, as circular of 17.1.1997 has been issued whereby bio data has been called for of Foremen, the benefit given to Gurdev Kumar is to be extended to applicant as well. As letter dated 25.9.1987 of respondents, whereby certain relaxations have been given to upgrade the post of Foreman, was not available the delay was shown to be bona fide and reliance has been placed on a decision of the Apex Court in State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh 2001 (1) SCSLJ 76.
4. On the other hand, Shri Ajesh Luthra, learned Counsel appearing for respondents, on the issue of limitation, stated that limitation cannot be condoned on the benefit of the decision of the Court and relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. S.M. Kottaryya and also Kameshwar Prasad Singh (supra) to invoke Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
5. Learned Counsel contended that as decision in Gurdev Kumar (supra) culminated into dismissal of OA in review, would not be the basis of representation as well as ground of limitation.
6. Learned Counsel would contend that despite reply of respondents in 2000, OA was filed in March 2005 and it is stated that repeated representations would not extend the period of limitation, as held by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in State of M.P. v. S.S. Rathore .
7. Learned Counsel would contend that though the letter dated 25.9.87 is a guise and pretext of applicant to get limitation condoned is not even annexed with the OA.
8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material on record.
9. Keeping in light the bona fide act and no mala fide on the part of applicant and his justifiable explanation, as Gurdev Kumar (supra) was decided on the same ground though reversed in review, yet keeping in light the merit of the case, in the interest of justice and having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in Kameshwar Prasad Singh (supra) delay in filing the OA is condoned and objection as to limitation is overruled.
10. Learned Counsel of applicant states that whereas no post was created in the discipline of applicant in Electronic and Telecommunication, which could have upgraded as per the recommendations of Madan Committee to Lecturer, claim of applicant was not considered, whereas in other Polytechnics, as a one time relaxation, as per order dated 6.6.1989, which is based on letter dated 7.3.1989, similar treatment has been meted out to identically situated would constitute invidious discrimination, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
11. Learned Counsel would also contend that having qualification of BE applicant was eligible for consideration as Lecturer, which has not been given but extended to one similarly circumstanced, namely, G.P. Saxena.
12. On the other hand, learned Counsel of respondents contended that the reliefs claimed by applicant are vague, as post of Foreman is a Group 'C' post, his claim could not be considered as Instructor Foreman, as no post was created in his discipline of Electronic and Telecommunication and on mechanical side, applicant not qualified in mechanical side is not entitled to be considered.
13. As regards claim of upgradation of post of Foreman to Lecturer, it is stated that as per charter of duties attached by applicant to the post of Foreman teaching aspect is conspicuously missing and as only those posts have been upgraded where teaching element is present the claim of applicant to upgrade his post to Lecturer, cannot be countenanced.
14. On careful consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, creation of post in the discipline of Electronic and Telecommunication retrospectively is the prerogative of Government and after retirement of applicant, at this belated stage, would not be inconsonance with law.
15. As applicant's case for Instructor Foreman could not be considered for want of a post in his discipline, being ineligible under the Rules having not in possession of BE on mechanical side the post of Foreman has been upgraded in mechanical side, applicant being ineligible could not have been considered and was rightly not considered.
16. As regards upgradation of applicant as Lecturer, as per the charter of duties the responsibility of a Foreman is to assist Lecturer and has no duty attached of teaching, which is the paramount element in upgradation of the post of Lecturer, as the post of Foreman in Polytechnics has been upgraded there are separate set of recommendations by Madan Committee for the Engineering Colleges, which are on a higher functioning, requiring expertise and requisite eligibility for the post of Lecturer, applicant being ineligible and not possessing the qualification has rightly not been considered and rejection of his request in 2000, cannot be faulted in law.
17. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, the OA is found bereft of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.