Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
P Udaya Kumar vs Nsic on 28 March, 2022
1 OA No.766/2022
Item No.12
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No.766/2022
This the 28th day of March, 2022
Hon'ble Ms. Manjula Das, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
P.Udaykumar,
Aged about 59 years,
Director (Planning & Marketing),
National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. (NSIC),
NSIC Bhawan,
Okhla Industrial Estate,
New Delhi-110020.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Tamim Qadri)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises,
Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. (NSIC),
Through
Chairman and Managing Director (CMD),
NSIC Bhawan,
Okhla Industrial Estate,
New Delhi-110020.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Sh. Rupinder Pal Singh for Respondent No.1
and Sh. Ajesh Luthra for Respondent No.2)
2 OA No.766/2022
Item No.12
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Ms. Manjula Das, Chairman Present Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-
"i) Quash and set aside the order dated 15.12.2021 office order dated 29.12.2021 and office order dated 11.03.2022 issued by the respondent no.1;
ii) Direct respondent no.1 to follow and implement the guidelines of DoPT with respect to giving additional charge of CMD, NSIC to the applicant who is the senior most functional director."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant joined Chennai Petroleum Corporation, Chennai in the marketing department in 1989-90 and worked for almost 20 years. Thereafter in November 2010 he joined as Director (Planning & Marketing) with respondent No.2 - National Small Industries Corporation (NSIC) with the approval of Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC) through Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) for a period of five years initially, after the selection through Public Enterprises Selection Board (PSEB). In 2015 his tenure was further extended for five years with the approval of ACC in view of excellent ACR and excellent performance for uplifting NSIC. 3 OA No.766/2022 Item No.12
3. It is averred that in 2016-17 the then CMD of NSCI was very vindictive towards the applicant and deliberately downgraded his ACR to „Good‟ . The applicant contested the downgrading of ACR and appealed to the Joint Secretary, Ministry of MSME, but nothing was done in the matter.
4. It is submitted that respondent No.1 conferred additional charge of CMD, NSIC from 01.10.2018 to 17.02.2019 on Mr. Sudhir Garg, Joint Secretary in Ministry of MSME under Development Commissioner in complete violation of DOP&T guidelines issued on 23.02.2017. It is stated that under Clause B(I)(i) of the said guidelines, additional charge of the post of CMD is to be assigned to the senior most functional Director. Thereafter, this additional charge of CMD, NSIC was given to Mrs. Usha, Financial Advisor, Khadi Village Industrial Commission, Mumbai, who was an outsider, without the approval of ACC from 18.02.2019 to 11.03.2019. Thereafter, the additional charge of CMD was given to Development Commissioner, MSME from 12.03.2019 to 13.11.2019 without considering the applicant, who it is stated, was the senior most Director and was supposed to be appointed as per the guidelines of DOP&T. It is further submitted that respondent
- Ministry vide office order dated 14.09.2021 gave the additional charge of CMD, NSIC to Mrs. Alka Nangia Aroa, Joint Secretary (who was responsible for holding the ACR 4 OA No.766/2022 Item No.12 rectification of the applicant in the Ministry), in anticipation of ACC approval, ignoring the applicant. The grievance of the applicant is that Mrs. Alka Nangia Aroa, who was given the additional charge of CMD, is junior to him and in the Ministry she was responsible for holding the ACR rectification of the applicant. Moreover, applicant is the senior most functional Director to take the additional charge of CMD. Feeling aggrieved, applicant made representation to various authorities followed by reminders but to no avail. Hence this OA.
5. Heard Mr. Tamim Qadri, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Rupinder Pal Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
6. At the outset, learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the applicant will be satisfied if his representation dated 22.12.2021, being the latest one, sent to the respondents, is decided in a time bound manner.
7. Learned counsel for respondents has no objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for applicant.
8. In view of the above, the OA is disposed of at the admission stage itself, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, with a direction to the respondents to 5 OA No.766/2022 Item No.12 decide the representation dated 22.12.2021, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, under intimation to the applicant. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Mohd.Jamshed) (Manjula Das)
Member (A) Chairman
sd/sm