Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
B Renuka vs Ut Of Pondicherry on 18 December, 2023
tof 10 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH OA/310/01510/2019 & MA/310/00184/2020 in_OA/310/01510/2019 DATED THIS 18" DAY THE MONDAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND TWENTY THREE CORAM : HON'BLE SMT. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, MEMBER (J) HON'BLE SHRI. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, MEMBER (A) B. Renuka wife of Balaraman, Aged about 54 years, Residing at No. 25, Mariamman Koil Street, Pitchaveeranpet, Uzhavarkarai, Pondicherry-605 010. .+.. Applicant (Advocate: M/s. R. Sarvanan) Versus The Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education & Research, Rep. by its Director Dhanvantri Nagar Puducherry-605 006; The Deputy Director (Administration) The Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education & Research, Dhanvantri Nagar, Puducherry-605 006; Valarmady Balaraman B; Sagayamarie D Tamayandi V; Hemavathi Sundaramourthy; . Aave 2 of 10 Soumady P; Gananselvy R; Dhatchinamoorthy K; Respondents 3 to 9 under C/O CSSD Department, Deputy Director(Admin) JIPMER, Dhanvantri Nagar, Puducherry-605 006. .... Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. M.T. Arunan) @ 3 of 10 ORAL, ORDER
(Hon'ble Smt. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J) By this Original Application, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-
"(a) Call for the records on the file of the 2™ Respondent relating to the impugned circular issuing final inter se seniority list dated 23.05.2019 bearing Ref No.: No. Admin-
I/Seniority/24(22)/2019 and consequential impugned office memorandum dated 14.08.2019 bearing ref No. No. Admin- 1/Sen/24(22)/2019 and consequential order dated 19.10.2019 bearing Ref No. No. Admin-1/Sen./24(2)/2019 and Quash the same;
(b) Direct the Respondents | & 2 to re-publish the final seniority list thereby placing the applicant above the respondents 3-9 in accordance with law as the final inter se seniority list for the post of CSSD attendants;
c) award costs of the Original Application; &
d) Pass such further or other orders and thus render justice."
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-
Initially, the Applicant was appointed on daily rated basis and in the year 1995, the Applicant was conferred with temporary status and in the year 1997, the Applicant was appointed to the post of Safaiwala on regular basis. As a matter of fact, by order, dated 11.06.2009, the Applicant and other Safaiwala were granted pay upgradation. On 18.05.2006, a seniority list was 4of 10 also published in respect of Safaiwala and the Applicant's Serial No. was 118. While being so, again the 2" Respondent issued a tentative seniority list on 27.10.2015, inviting objections to the seniority fixed therein. In the seniority list, the Applicant is shown as Sl. No,12 while all her juniors were shown as SI.
Nos. I to 11. As a matter of fact, the Applicant is the senior most and ought to have been placed in Sl. No.l. In this regard, the Applicant immediately submitted her objections on 29.10.2015. However, the same was rejected and, hence, challenging the same, the applicant has filed the instant OA, seeking the aforesaid relief.
3. After notice, the respondents have entered appearance through their counsel, filed a detailed reply and opposed the relief on the ground that the applicant has been absorbed in the post of CCSD Attendant on 14.07.2014, whereas the other respondents, arrayed as Private Respondents, have been absorbed prior to the applicant from 2012 to 2013, on different dates. The respondents further contended that the seniority list, dated 27.10.2015, was issued, in which the applicant's name was shown at SJ. No.12 on the ground that respondents 3 to 8 were absorbed in the post of CSSD Attendant well before the applicant though the private respondents have submitted their request to place the applicant above them in the seniority list, they cannot be said to be juniors to the applicant. Though the representation has been given by the private respondents by way of no objection for the applicant to be placed above them, 5 of 10 there is no government order to revise the said seniority, which was finalized in the year 2015, and to place the applicant above them. 'The respondents further contended that, against the direction, dated 08.04.2019, of this Tribunal, in OA 507 of 2019, the applicant's representation, dated 28.10.2015, has been considered by way of compliance and a detailed order has been passed on 14.08.2019. There is no error in the seniority list. Against the applicant's representation, dated 30.01.2013, vide Office Memorandum, dated 03.06.2013, for the first time, the applicant hag been redeployed to work as Attendant (CSSD) in the CSSD Department, without change of designation, with effect from the said date, i.e., 03.06.2013 and, thereafter, she has been absorbed as CSSD attendant on 14.07.2014 only. Respondents further contended that, based on the absorption, the seniority list, dated 27.10.2015, was issued, in which the applicant was shown at SI. No. 12. Since respondents 3 to 8 were absorbed in the post of CSSD Attendant well before the applicant, they cannot be said to be junior to the applicant. As stated by the applicant, there is no factual error or violation of rules in fixing of seniority of the applicant. The applicant has stated that, on the same day, four of other co-employees, viz. Sagayamary, Valarmathy, Damayanthi and Hemavathi, also submitted a representation stating no objection for the applicant to be placed above them. There is no government order to revise the seniority list in favour of the applicant under such Gof 10 circumstances and on consideration basis. Therefore, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the O.A. 4, Heard both sides. Perused the records.
5. | Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant who came to be appointed on Daily Rated basis in November, 1992, vide memo, dated 18.03.1995, she has been granted temporary status with effect from 07.01.1995 and she has been placed at S$]. No. 32 in the said list of 'Grant of Temporary Status to Daily Rated Labourers'. Vide memo, dated 14.07.1997, the applicant was appointed as Daily Rated Labourer, who was working as Daily basis and conferred with temporary status and appointed as Safaiwala, on officiating basis, and the said appointment was further continued followed by two-year probation, vide order, dated 30.07.1997. Vide order, dated 11.06.2009, the Fitment of upgraded pay scales to existing Group-D employees, as per the recommendations of the 6" Central Pay Commission, was issued, and, accordingly, the applicant, along with other employees, was granted the pay scale.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, vide the Circular, dated 18.05.2006, seniority amongst the Safaiwalas has been published and the applicant's name figured at S$]. No.88. The applicant, who had entered into service, as Daily Rated, on 07.01.1995, and thereafter, the applicant had os, 7 of 10 been redeployed to work in the Nursing Section, vide Memorandum, dated 23.09.2009, and her name figured at SI. No. 60. Though the respondents have redeployed the applicant as Peon, vide their memorandum, dated 10.12.2009, to the CSSD Department from the Nursing Section, the respondents have not given effect to this order. Subsequently, the applicant came to be relieved to work as Nursing Attendant, vide relieving order, dated 16.11.2010, along with three other Safaiwalas. Since services of the other three Safaiwalas have been regularized, though they were junior to the applicant. Therefore, the applicant submitted her request on 30.112012 to regularize her services in the post of CSSD Attendant, being senior, and the same was forwarded with the comment that she has been doing the work of CCSD attendant from 16.11.2011 till date by the Chief Medical Officer (NFSC), Officer-In-charge,CSSD, JIPMER, Pondichery. Initially, vide memorandum, dated 23.01.2013, her request was not considered. The applicant submitted another request on 30.01.2013 to redeploy her as CSSD Attendant and requested to regularize her service and the same was forwarded by the Chief Medical Officer (NFSG), Officer-In-charge,CSSD, JIPMER, Pondicherry, with a recommendation that she had been working as CSSD Attendant since 16.11.2010, based on the letter No. NG/1/2010, dated 16.11.2010, issued by Nursing Superintendent Office. Vide Office Memorandum, dated 03.06.2013, she was redeployed to work as Attendant (CSSD) in the CSSD Department and, accordingly, on 14.07.2014, she came to 8 of 10 be absorbed as CSSD Attendant, with effect from the date she had assumed charge in the post of CSSD Attendant. Office Order, dated 20.08.2014, was issued Stating that the applicant had assumed the charge. Accordingly, the respondents, by Circular, dated 27.10.2015, issued the tentative seniority list, to which, the applicant had raised objection. Though she had raised objection, without heeding her objection, the respondents prepared the final seniority list on 23.05.2019 and in which the applicant's name figured at SI. No.12.
Accordingly, the promotion orders were issued for other candidates, who are senior and in the seniority list they are at $1. Nos. 1 to 3.
7. Ld. counsel for the applicant further submits that the respondents have not followed the seniority list which was prepared, as per the entry of the employee into service, and without following the same, the persons who are admittedly junior to the applicant, have been placed above, in the said seniority list and as they were absorbed prior to the applicant, the act of the respondents is, therefore, not only against the seniority list but also against the settled position of law. Whenever the respondents have to give effect to the absorption followed by temporary status granted to the employee, it is necessary to follow the seniority list prepared and maintained by the respondents.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed to the prayer on the ground that the applicant came to be absorbed as CSSD Attendant on 14.07.2014 whereas the other candidates, were Sof 10 absorbed in the post of CSSD Attendant from 2012 to 2013, therefore, automatically, they will regain their seniority from the date of their assumption of charge as CSSD Attendant. Ld. counsel for the respondents further submits that though the other candidates who have given no objection to revise the seniority, the government has not revised the same . There is no rule to consider no objection given by other candidates.
9. It is to be noted that, as recorded above, from the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant, it is not in dispute that the applicant joined service in the office of the respondents on 07.01.1995, and the other candidates, who were absorbed as CSSD Attendant prior to the applicant, are actually junior to the applicant. As per the seniority list, they also joined as Safaiwalas, though they were granted temporary status. That does not mean that the persons who are junior to the applicant, regain the seniority at the time of absorption. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the list, which was prepared only on the basis of the absorption, including the applicant, who came to be absorbed, with much pursuation, in the year 2014 itself, is bad in law and against the original seniority list. The action of the respondents does not stand scrutiny in the eyes of law. Therefore, the same is hereby quashed and set aside, The impugned impugned circular, issuing the final inter-se seniority list, dated 23.05.2019, bearing Ref No.: No. Admin-I/Seniority/24(22)/2019 and the consequential impugned office memorandum, dated 14.08.2019, bearing ref No. 10 of 10 No. Admin-1/Sen./24(22)/2019 and, the subsequent order, dated 19.10.2019, bearing Ref No. No. Admin-1/Sen./24(2)/2019, are hereby quashed and set aside. Respondents 1 & 2 are directed to re-publish the final seniority list, placing the applicant above the respondents 3 to 9, in accordance with law, following the final seniority list which was published by the department on 18.05.2006, wherein the name of the applicant figured at Sl. 88 and the other employees, who were juniors to the applicant, have to be placed accordingly. This entire exercise is to be carried out by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
10. With the above direction/ observation, the O.A. is, accordingly, allowed. No costs. As the O.A., is allowed, MA 184 of 2020, seeking injunction restraining the respondents 1 & 2 or their authorities from, in any manner, filling up the post of CSSD Assistant, is accordingly closed.