Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Binesh P vs Union Of India Represented By The ... on 8 March, 2017
Author: P.Gopinath
Bench: P.Gopinath
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.180/00061/2017
Dated this Wednesday the 8th day of March , 2017.
CORAM
Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Balakrishnan, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mrs.P.Gopinath, Administrative Member
Binesh P., aged 47 years,
S/o K.N. Ramakrishnan, Accountant, (on deputation)
Office of the Principal Chief Controller of Accounts,
Zonal Accounts Office, 3rd Floor,
San Juan Towers,
Old Railway Station Road, Cochin 682 018
Residing at: Punnackal House, Madhura Veli,
Ayamkudi P.O., Kottayam District, Pin: 686 613.
. . . Applicant
[By Advocates Mr.T.C.Govinda Swamy & Mrs. Kala T.G ]
Versus
1. Union of India represented by the Secretary to
the Government of India,
Ministry of Finance,
New Delhi 110 001.
2. The Principal Chief Controller of Accounts
Central Board of Direct Taxes
9th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan,
Khan Market, New Delhi 110 003.
3. The Senior Accounts Officer,
Zonal Accounts Office,
Office of the Principal Chief Controller of Accounts
Central Board of Direct Taxes,
3rd Floor, San Juan Towers,
Old Railway Station Road,
Cochin - 6 82 018
4. The Registrar,
Debts Recovery Tribunal -I
(Ministry of Finance Financial Services)
2nd Floor, Bikhu Bhai Chamber,
Opposite: Deepak Petro Pump,
Ellise Bridge,
Paldi, Ahmedabad 380 006.
5. The Registrar,
Debts Recovery Tribunal I
(Ministry of Finance Financial Services)
5th Floor, KSHB Office Complex,
Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682 306. ... Respondents
(By Mr. N. Anilkumar, Sr. PCGC(R))
This application having been finally heard on 28.02.2017, the Tribunal on 08/03/2017
delivered the following:
O R D E R (ORAL)
Per: Mrs. P.Gopinath, Administrative Member:
The applicant who joined the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad, under the 1st respondent as an LDC was subsequently promoted and working as an Upper Division Clerk-cum-Cashier. While so, applications were invited through paper publication for appointment on deputation as Accountants under the 2 nd and 3rd respondents. The applicant responded to the same was subjected to a due process of selection and appointed in terms of a letter bearing No. Admn/5- 1/2011-12/Pr.CCA/CBDT/923 dated 14.11.2011. The applicant's stay was being extended from time to time. Applicant is aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the respondent to consider the applicant's request for a further extension for a period of one more year.
2. The applicant submits that applicant's appointment is one by deputation. Government of India orders on the subject enables the continuation of a person appointed on deputation for a period of five years. The applicant submits, that respondents 1 to 3 were willing to grant extension to applicant's period of deputation. We find that this contention of applicant is not supported by the respondent reply.
3. Reliefs sought by applicant is to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to allow the applicant to continue on deputation for one more year upto 04.12.2017, or at least till such time the recruitment to the post of Recovery Inspector is finalised by the fifth respondent.
4. The respondent submits that conditions laid down in the Annexure A2 OM is as follows:
It has been decided that if the administrative Ministries/Departments and other borrowing organizations wish to retain an officer beyond 5 years, they may extend tenure of deputation covered b y O.M. No.6/8/2009-Estt. (Pay.II) dated 17 th June 2010, where absolutely necessary in public interest, upto a period not exceeding 7 years at a stretch. This shall be done with the approval of the Minister of the borrowing Ministry/Department concerned and in respect of other organizations with the approval of the Minister of the borrowing Ministry/Department with which they are administratively concerned, keeping in view the exigencies and subject to fulfillment of all other requirements such as willingness and vigilance clearance of the Officer concerned, NOC of the lending authority, UPSC/ACC approval wherever applicable.
The 5th respondent that is the borrowing department did not wish to retain applicant beyond the fourth year. However on the strength of interim order against OA 347/2016 he continued in service in fifth year. Beyond forth year, Minister of the borrowing department has to give approval. It has not been given. NOC from his parent department has also not been given for sixth year. Hence respondent argues that applicant not eligible for continuation on deputation. Applicant's relieving order was issued by Pr. Chief Controller of Accounts, CBDT vide letter Order No. 301/2015-16 dated 4/12/2015 w.e.f. 4.12.2015.
5. Respondent submits that office letter seeking NOC for the sixth year was issued by Zonal Accounts Officer inadvertently and it was withdrawn by him vide Annexure R(1) a letter. The applicant was however, not given NOC for the sixth year by his parent department. Relieving order dated 02.12.2016 was issued by head quarter since the O.A.No.347/2016 became infructuous on that day. But applicant was not physically relieved from the Zonal Accounts Office Kochi in pursuance of head quarter letter, since the interim order was in force against OA 347/2016 till 04.01.2017.
6. Respondent argues that deputationists were invited to work in the respondent department when Staff Selection Commission was not conducting the competitive examinations. Now SSC is conducting the test every year, and supplying dossiers for appointment. Respondent informs that till October, 2014, applicant could have been absorbed in respondent organization had he applied for the same. The applicant has not applied for absorption and now he is trying to take undue advantage of making up for the lost chance. It is the decision of the borrowing department to repatriate all deputationists. The respondents 1 to 3 argue that they are not having any interest in continuation of applicant's deputation. Applicant being on deputation or otherwise would not have any effect on his appointment as Inspector, a post he has applied for, and this would not be a reason for his extension in other organization. Annexure A7 of respondent is valid since Tribunal dismissed the O.A. 347/2016. Applicant's parent department has also not issued NOC for his continuation, and therefore applicant is not having any right to continue on deputation.
7. As per Annexure A2 DOPT OM the extension of tenure of deputation beyond five years may be given if the administrative ministries/department/borrowing department wish to retain the deputee. There is also a provision that this may be done, where absolutely necessary in public interest, for a period not exceeding seven years at a stretch. Hence the two operative clauses are subject to, lender and borrowing departments agreeing to the extension, and secondly may be done where absolutely necessary in public interest. In the case of the applicant the borrowing department contends, rightly too, that they do not have any interest in continuing the applicant's deputation as they have taken a policy decision to repatriate deputationists as the Staff Selection Commission is now conducting recruitment to posts. Further the lending department has not issued NOC for continuation of the deputation of applicant. Hence the two conditions laid down in Annexure A2 DOPT OM of 17 Feb 2016 do not stand fulfilled as far as continuation of applicant on deputation is concerned. The deputation department is not the parent department of the applicant where he has a right to work as long as he desires to. The deputation department has a right to retain or revert any person on deputation and the reasoning for the same has been provided in the reply statement. It is inconceivable how a deputationist can dictate terms to the borrowing department to allow him to continue on deputation. The deputation department having exercised the option of returning the applicant deputee, for valid reasons of having sufficient departmental staff recruited through Staff Selection Commission, the applicant would have to be reverted to his parent department.
Hence prayer of the applicant to continue on deputation is totally bereft of any merit.
8. O.A. is dismissed accordingly. M.A. No.180/00092/2017 also stands closed. No order as to costs.
(Mrs. P. Gopinath) (N.K. Balakrishnan) Administrative Member Judicial Member sj*