Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Ram Shankar Shukla vs Union Of India on 22 January, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA No. 2145/2009 New Delhi, this the 22nd day of January, 2010 HONBLE MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MR. SHAILENDRA PANDEY, MEMBER (A) 1. Sh. Ram Shankar Shukla 2. Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sinha 3. Sh. Sunil Bhardwaj 4. Sh. Vidya Dhar Sharma 5. Sh. Bibekananda Rath 6. Sh. Rajesh Kumar 7. Sh. Parveen Kumar 8. Sh. Harish Chander 9. Sh. Sayed Hasan 10. Sh. R.K. Bhandari 11. Sh. Subrata Banerjee 12. Sh. Sanjay Gauri 13. Sh. Devasia Joseph 14. Sh. Sanjay Manocha 15. Sh. Nirbhay Pratap Singh 16. Sh. Umesh Kumar Tiwari Applicants By Advocate : Sh. C. Hari Shankar Versus 1. Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. Union of India Through Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, North Block, New Delhi. 3. Union Public Service Commission, Through Secretary, UPSC, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi. 4. Sh. Paramjit Singh, Principal Private Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 5. Ms. Bimla Seth, Principal Private Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 6. Sh. A.K. Dewani, Principal Private Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 7. Sh. V.K. Mody, Principal Private Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 8. Ms. Majinder Kaur, Principal Private Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 9. Ms. Janki Ramesh, Principal Private Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 10. Ms. Kanchan Bala Jain, Principal Private Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 11. Ms. Manmohan Kaur, Principal Private Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 12. Sh. A. Gopalakrishnan, Principal Private Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 13. Ms. Saroj Bala Gandhi, Principal Private Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 14. Ms. Anita Malhotra, Principal Private Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 15. Sh. P.K. Vaid, Principal Private Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 16. Sh. P.K. Dua, Principal Private Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 17. Ms. Veda Thakur, Principal Private Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 18. Ms. Usha Gopalakrishnan, Principal Private Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 19. Sh. S. Sridhar, Principal Private Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 20. Ms. Indu Chopra, Principal Private Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 21. Sh. M. Rajagopal, Principal Private Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 22. Sh. B. Mohanan, Principal Private Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. Respondents By Advocate : Sh. Shailendra Tiwary and Shri Rajinder Khattar. O R D E R
By Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) Applicants, who are 16 in number are working as Section Officers in the Railway Board Secretariat Service (hereinafter referred to as RBSS). They have challenged circular dated 9.7.2007 wherein the Private Secretaries of the Railway Board Secretariat Stenographers Service (hereinafter referred to as RBSSS, i.e., Respondents No.4 to 22) have been included as eligible candidates for promotion to the post of Under Secretary Grade-I /Deputy Director in the RBSS (page 57).
2. It is submitted by the applicants that recruitment to the grade of Under Secretary Grade-I/Deputy Director of RBSS is governed by Rule 8 (3) of RBSS Rules (page 74).
3. According to Rule 8 (3) only those persons are eligible who had rendered not less than 8 years of approved service in Grade-A of RBSSS Rules and had worked as SO for at least one year. The private respondents No.4 to 22 have neither rendered 8 years of approved service in Grade-A of RBSSS nor have worked as Section Officers in RBSS for one year, which was the requisite eligibility for being considered for the post of Under Secretary/Deputy Secretary. Moreover, no reasons have been recorded in writing by the Central Government expressing their satisfaction that they were not appointed to the Section Officers grade owing to exigencies of service. They have thus submitted that private respondents had wrongly been shown as eligible in the circular dated 9.7.2007.
4. They have specifically stated that the private respondents were appointed as Grade B in RBSSS. In order to substantiate his arguments, learned counsel for the applicants invited our attention to page 95 at 112 to show that as per the Railway Board Secretariat Stenographers Service Rules, 1971, under the 5th Schedule para 3 deals with only maintenance of Select List for Grade-B. The private respondents were appointed as per the select list of Private Secretaries in terms of clause (a) of sub-para (1) of Regulation 3 of Fifth Schedule to the Railway Board Secretariat Stenographers Service Rules, 1971 (page 136). They have thus submitted that since the private respondents were appointed against Rule 3 (1)(a) of the fifth Schedule to the RBSSS Rules, 1971, it is clear that the respondents were promoted only to Grade B.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that though as per the proviso to Rule 8 (3) relaxation can be granted but that is subject to the Central Government recording in writing the reasons, as to why the PSs could not be appointed as Section Officers for one year. In the instant case, no such reasons have been recorded by the Ministry of Railways, therefore, the said relaxation could not have been given to the private respondents. In order to substantiate this argument, he invited our attention to the various orders passed by the CIC and even by the Honble High Court of Delhi to show that the private respondents were not granted any exemption by the Ministry of Railways. They have thus prayed that the OA may be allowed and circular dated 9.7.2007 may be quashed to the extent it includes the PS. In RBSSS as eligible candidates for the post of Grade-I Under Secretary/Deputy Director in RBSS.
6. Respondents on the other hand have stated that the private respondents could not be appointed as SOs due to exigencies of service. This fact has been certified by the Railways while sending proposal to the UPSC for convening DPC for the post of Under Secretary/Deputy Secretary, therefore, they are fully covered by the proviso to Rule 8 (3) RBSS Rules. The proviso specifically states that an officer of Grade-A of RBSSS who has not worked as a Section Officer for the said period of one year shall also be considered for promotion to Grade-I, if he is otherwise eligible for such promotion, provided Ministry of Railways have recorded reasons in writing about their satisfaction that such a person was not appointed in Section Officers Grade owing to exigencies of service. They have thus stated that the private respondents have rightly been included in the eligibility list.
7. As far as their having rendered 8 years of regular service in Grade-A is concerned, they have explained that consequent to the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission, three more grades were introduced in RBSS also. As far as RBSSS is concerned, in the year 1991 (based on the decision taken by Department of Personnel and Training vide their OM dated 15.05.1991, whereby the designation of various grades of the Central Secretariat Stenographers Services (CSSS) was changed on the ground that they do not truly represent the functions and status of the posts), the similar decision was adopted in RBSSS also thus revising the nomenclature of various grades in RBSSS vide order dated 18.06.1991(Annexure-I). Through the said order, the grade and the designations in RBSSS were changed as under:
S.No. Grade and Scale of Pay Existing Designation Revised Designation
1. P.S. Grade (Rs.3000-4500) Private Secretary Principal Private Secretary
2. Gr. A & B (Merged) (Rs.2000-3500) Sr. Personal Assistant Private Secretary
8. They have further explained that consequent upon acceptance of the 4th CPC recommendations by the Government, the pay scale of Grade-A Stenographers of RBSSS (Rs.650-1200) and Grade B (Rs.650-1040) were merged and a common pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 was given to them with effect from 01.01.1986. Thus, from 1.1.1986 both the grades stand merged. The Stenographers working in the revised pay scale of Rs.2000-3500/- i.e. (Grade A & B merged) used to be designated as Sr. Personal Assistant. Subsequent to the revision of the nomenclature of various Grades of RBSSS, the Sr.PA which was equivalent to the Grade A & B merged were revised as Private Secretary. Now the stenographers Grade-C who were earlier promoted to the Grade-B are being promoted to the post of Private Secretary which is equivalent to the Grade A & B merged. Such promotion is made in terms of para 3 of the 5th Schedule to RBSSS Rules, 1971. They have thus stated that private respondents have rightly been included in the eligibility list vide Notification dated 9.7.2007 because Grade-A and B stood merged and they had completed more than 8 years as P.S.
9. Moreover this practice was followed for preparing the panel for the year 2000-01. The list finalized by UPSC contained the name of an officer from RBSSS also, i.e. Smt. Anita Gautam. It is thus clear that even UPSC had agreed to the inclusion of officers of RBSSS in the zone of consideration for being considered for promotion to the Grade-I of RBSS. The same practice was followed this time also, but since large number of representations were received from individuals as well as Association protesting against inclusion of Private Secretary in the zone of consideration of Grade-I of RBSS, the same was examined but no irregularity was found. Accordingly, their representations were rejected. Similarly number of applications under RTI were also received, therefore, a decision was taken to grant exemption to the PSs for being considered for promotion to Grade-I of RBSS. The notings of the file were not provided to the applicants as the said file related to the proposal for finalization of the Grade-I panels with UPSC which is pending. They have stated that in the meantime private respondents from Sl.No.4 to 9 Shri Paramjeet Singh, Ms. Bimla Seth, Shri A K Diwani, Shri V K Modi, Ms. Manjinder Kaur, Ms. Janki Ramesh, Ms. Kanchan Bela Jain & Ms. Manmohan Kaur have been regularly promoted as PPS on the basis of recommendation of the UPSC and the names have been circulated vide O.O. No.49 of 2009 (Annexure-I), as such they are not eligible for being considered for promotion to the Grade-I. Accordingly, UPSC is being requested to delete their names from the zone of consideration. In view of the facts as explained above, they have prayed that the OA may be dismissed.
10. Counsel for the private respondents adopted the arguments advanced by the official respondents.
11. We have heard all the counsel and perused the pleadings as well.
12. Since promotion to the post of Under Secretary/Deputy Secretary is governed by Rule 8 (3) of RBSS Rules, it would be relevant to refer to the said rule, which for ready reference reads as under:-
8. Recruitment to selection Grade and Grade-I:- (i) vacancies in the Selection Grade shall be filled by promotion of permanent officers of Grade-I who have rendered not less than 5 years approved service in that grade and are included in the Select List for the selection prepared under sub-rule (5).
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx $(2) Omitted.
*** (3) Vacancies in Grade-I shall be filled by promotion of permanent officers of the Section Officers Grade who have rendered not less than eight years approved service in that grade and of permanent officers of the Grade-A of the Railway Board Secretariat Stenographers Service who have rendered not less than eight years approved service in that grade and have worked as Section Officers for at least a period of one year in accordance with the proviso to rule 6 and are included in the Select List for Grade-I of the Service prepared under sub-rule (5):
*** Amended vide ERBI/70/9/3 dated 1.12.1973, ERBI/79/37/1 dated 20.4.1979 and ERBI/7937/4 dated 7.4.80.
Provided that an officer of the Grade-A of the Railway Board Secretariat Stenographers Service who has not worked as a Section Officer for the said period of one year shall also be considered for promotion to Grade-I if he is otherwise eligible for such promotion and the Central Government in the Ministry of Railway, for reasons to be recorded in writing, are satisfied that such a person was not appointed to the Section Officers Grade owing to exigencies of service.
13. Perusal of the rule shows that permanent officers of the Section Officers grade in RBSS and Private Secretaries of the Railway Boards Secretariat Stenographers Service (RBSSS), both are eligible to be considered provided RBSSS Officers they have rendered not less than 8 years approved service in that Grade-A and have also worked as Section Officer for one year in accordance with the proviso to Rule 6. However, proviso comes to the rescue of officers of RBSSS as it stipulates that even if an officer of Grade-A of RBSSS has not worked as Section Officer for one year, he can still be considered for promotion to Grade-I if he is otherwise eligible for such promotion provided the Central Government in the Ministry of Railways, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, are satisfied that such a person was not appointed to the SOs Grade due to exigencies of service.
14. In view of above rule, we are called upon to see whether the private respondents had put in 8 years of regular service in Grade-A of RBSSS and whether there was any satisfaction recorded by the Ministry of Railways that these persons could not be posted as SO due to exigencies of service.
15. As far as their appointment to Grade-A Service is concerned, it is correct that initially these private respondents were appointed to Grade-B but respondents have explained that Grade-A and B of RBSSS were merged with effect from 1.1.1986 and were placed in the common pay scale of Rs.2000-3500. There was no distinction between Grade-A and Grade-B thereafter. Not only Grade-A and B were merged as P.S. Moreover, Grade-C Stenographers who were earlier considered for Grade-B are not considered for promotion to Grade-A and B merged. From 1986, Grade-A and Grade-B both are known as Private Secretary. In view of above, it cannot be stated that the private respondents do not fulfill the criteria of having rendered 8 years of approved service in Grade-A.
16. The second requirement as per Rule 8 (3) was that they should have worked as Section Officer for one year but there is exception to this also in the proviso that Grade-A officers of RBSSS would be considered if they could not be posted as SO due to exigency of service. In the instant case, admittedly none of the private respondents had worked as Section Officers. Applicants whole case is that no exemption was granted to the private respondents in writing before issuing the eligibility list whereas respondents have stated that they could not be posted as Section Officer due to exigencies of service. In order to ascertain the facts, we had summoned the records of the Railways. Perusal of the file shows that after the eligibility list was issued, a large number of representations were given by the affected persons which were examined by the authorities and ultimately the Secretary, Railway Board, had recorded as follows on 14.8.2007:-
It is a well known fact due to the administrative compulsions it has not been possible to appoint PS to work as SO for one year. There is nothing fictitious about this real problem of the administration. As is the practice, the names of PSs should be included in the years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05.
The above said note was approved by the Member (Staff), Railway Board, New Delhi also.
It is thus clear that it was recorded at the level of Secretary that the P.S. of RBSSS, could not be posted as SO due to administrative difficulties. Moreover, while sending proposal to the UPSC, it was certified in the draft letter at para 3 that none of the PSs could be appointed to work as SOs for a period of one year due to exigencies of service. It is thus clear that though on the date when list of eligibility was issued, i.e., 9.7.2007, there was no such recording by the Railway Board, but subsequently after examining the whole issue, it was duly certified that PS could not be appointed to work as SO due to the administrative problems. The private respondents case would thus be covered under the proviso to Rule 8 (3)
17. In these circumstances, since on the date of issuance of eligibility list, the satisfaction was not recorded, we could have quashed the circular dated 9.7.2007 and given liberty to the respondents to issue a fresh eligibility list but that would be a futile exercise in view of the fact that subsequently the issue had gained attention of the authorities and they had in fact certified that these persons could not be appointed as SO for one year due to exigencies of service.
18. We, therefore, find no good ground to interfere in the matter. The OA is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(SHAILENDRA PANDEY) (MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Rakesh