Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Raman Kant Kapil vs M/O Defence on 13 January, 2022
1
Item No. 08 OA No. 63/2022
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No. 63/2022
This the 13th day of January, 2022
Through Video Conferencing
Hon'ble Ms. Manjula Das, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
Raman Kant Kapil, Programmer, Group 'B'
Aged About 59 Years,
5/0 Late Sh. Dhani Ram,
R/o H. No. 73, Pkt-III,
Sector-2, Rohini, Delhi-1l00SS
0/0 J.S & CAO, MOD
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
South Block, New Delhi.
2. The Joint Secretary & CAO,
Ministry of Defence,
Govt. of India,
'A' Block, Africa Avenue,
Near Sarojini Nagar Bus Depot,
New Delhi-1l0023.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Manish Kumar)
2
Item No. 08 OA No. 63/2022
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Ms. Manjula Das, Chairman The present OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs :-
"(i) to direct the respondents to consider the claim of applicant for promotion to the post of (sic) programmer from 01.11.2011 and to the post of Senior System Analyst from due date with all consequential benefits.
(ii) to declare the action of respondents in not promoting the applicant as Programmer from 01.11.2011 as illegal and direct the respondents to grant promotion to the applicant as Programmer from 01.01.2011 and consider the claim for further promotion to the post of Senior System Analyst w.e.f. 01.10.2020.
(iii) to allow the O.A with cost.
(iv) to pass any further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The applicant joined the respondent-department as Data Entry Operator-B (DEO-B). Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of DEO-C but, for getting further promotion to the grade of DPA-B, higher qualifications were required. Pursuant to that, the applicant acquired the requisite qualification of DOEACC 'A' level/Master Degree as prescribed in the Recruitment Rules. Later on, vide order dated 15.02.2016, the applicant was promoted to the post of Programmer.
3Item No. 08 OA No. 63/2022
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that after the recommendations of 6th CPC as well as for various other reasons, the respondents initiated the process of rationalizing the pay scale in the cadre of Electronic Data Processing on the recommendations of 'Seshagiri Committee', but instead of doing the needful, promotions in the cadre were stalled on one pretext or the other. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that neither any promotions were made, nor the recruitment rules were finalised by the department. Aggrieved with the inaction of the respondents, the applicant along with some similarly placed persons approached this Tribunal by way of filing OA No. 1267/2013, which was dismissed vide order dated 02.12.2014. The said order was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court, and the writ petition filed in that regard was allowed vide order dated 26.05.2015 directing the respondents to take steps to hold the DPC within a period of four months.
4. Pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble High Court, the applicant and other similarly placed persons were promoted to the post of 'Programmer' on 15.02.2016. According to the learned counsel, the applicant was eligible to be promoted with effect from 01.01.2011 and 4 Item No. 08 OA No. 63/2022 in this behalf he made a representation to the respondents on 30.01.2018. However, nothing was done by the respondents giving the only reason that DPC could not be held in time. The applicant again made a representation dated 01.07.2019 ventilating his grievance, but no response was received from the respondents in this behalf. As per the learned counsel, the applicant has suffered a lot due to the delay caused by the department, as also on account of non consideration of his date of promotion as 2011 instead of 2016. It is also contended by the learned counsel that initially the applicant was sent for nine months' training, which is a requirement under the Recruitment Rules. The applicant again submitted a representation on 22.07.2021 annexing his academic and training certificates. The said representation was considered by the authorities and the case of the applicant was recommended for further promotion to the post of Senior System Analyst. However, nothing has been done so far. Hence, the OA.
5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant at the admission stage and perused the pleadings.
6. At this stage, learned counsel for applicant made a limited prayer seeking a direction to the respondent- 5 Item No. 08 OA No. 63/2022 authorities to consider and dispose of his representation dated 12.07.2021 in a time bound manner.
7. In view of the foregoing and considering the limited prayer of the applicant, we deem it fit and proper to direct the respondent-authorities to consider and decide the pending representation of the applicant dated 12.07.2021 by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. With the above direction, the OA stands disposed of. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion as to the merits of the case.
There shall be no order as to costs.
[
( Mohd. Jamshed ) (Manjula Das )
Member (A) Chairman
/Mbt/dd/