Union Of India & Anr vs Sunil Kumar Saraswat & Anr on 3 January, 2018

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Union Of India & Anr vs Sunil Kumar Saraswat & Anr on 3 January, 2018

1. Sunil Kumar Saraswat son of Shri Ramesh Chand Saraswat, age about 36 years, resident of 89, Shivaji Nagar, Civil Lines, Jaipur, presently working as D.E.O. (Data Entry Operator) Grade-B office of the Director, Directorate of the Census Operation, B-6, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur Applicant----Respondent

2. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur through its Registrar.

Non-applicant/Non-petitioner Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10095 / 2005

1. Union Of India through the Registrar General and Census Commission of India, Department of Census, Ministry of Home Affairs, 2-A, Mansingh Road, New Delhi.

2. The Joint Director, Directorate of Census Operation, Government of India, 6-B, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur Respondents----Petitioners Versus

1. S.N. Kumawat S/o Shri Nanu Ram Kumawat by caste Kumawat aged about 36 years R/o plot no. E-48, Roopvihar Opp. P.L. Motors, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur, presently working as D.E.O. (Data Entry Operator) Grade-B office of the Director, Directorate of the census operation, B-6, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur

--Applicant-Respondent

2. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur through its Registrar.

--Non-Applicant/Non-Petitioner D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10096 / 2005

1. Union Of India through the Registrar General and Census (2 of 5) [ CW-503/2006] Commission of India, Department of Census, Ministry of Home Affairs, 2-A, Mansingh Road, New Delhi.

2. The Joint Director, Directorate of Census Operation, Government of India, 6-B, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur Respondents----Petitioners Versus

1. Lokesh Jain S/o Late Shri Rajmal Jain by caste Jain aged about 35 years, R/o B-90, Janta Colony, Jaipur, presently working as D.E.O. (Data Entry Operator) Grade-B office of the Director, Directorate of the census operation, B-6, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur

--Applicant-Respondent

2. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur through its Registrar.

--Non-Applicant/Non-Petitioner D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1023 / 2006

1. Union Of India through the Registrar General and Census Commission of India, Department of Census, Ministry of Home Affairs, 2-A, Mansingh Road, New Delhi.

2. The Joint Director, Directorate of Census Operation, Government of India, 6-B, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur Respondents----Petitioners Versus

1. Divesh Chawla S/o Shri Jai Kishan Chawala by caste Chawla aged about 35 years resident of 57-B, Ram Gali No. 7, Raja Park, Adarsh Nagar Jaipur, presently working as D.E.O. (Data Entry Operator) Grade-B office of the Director, Directorate of the census operation, B-6, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur

--Applicant-Respondent

2. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur through its Registrar.

--Non-Applicant/Non-Petitioner _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaurav Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Achintya Kaushik with Mr. Sudhir Shukla _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS (3 of 5) [ CW-503/2006] Order 03/01/2018 In these petitions common questions of law and facts are involved, hence, they are decided by this common judgment.

By way of these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal while considering the case has followed the judgment in the case of Arnold Grey and Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. in OA No. 197/2000 decided on 7.12.2001 and allowed the case of S.N. Kumawat. In the case of S.N. Kumawat the Tribunal in para 6 & 7 held as under:-

"6. We are of the firm view that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment delivered by this Tribunal in the case of Arnold Grey & ors. Vs. Union of India & ors. In OA No. 197/2000 which was decided on 7.12.2001. The said OA was filed by 9 applicants who were Data Entry Operator Grade-B and were appointed on ad hoc basis in the year 1983 initially for a period of about 3 months and thereafter their ad hoc services were continued from time to time and their services as Data Entry Operator Grade B were regularized in the year 1992 and 93. In fact, applicant No.8 & 9, Smt. Vandhana Agrawal and Smt. Sunita Rani, were regularized as Data Entry Operator Grade-B along with applicant by common order dated 5.5.93, though from different date which in the case of Smt. Vandana Agrawal and Smt. Sunita Rani was 5.2.93 and whereas in the case of applicant it was 26.2.93. The stand taken by the respondents in earlier OA was that the applicants therein are entitled for financial upgradation Scheme only after they have completed 12 years of service from the date of their regularisation as per the Scheme and not from the initial date of their appointment. This Tribunal after noticing the judgment of the Apex court and also relying upon the letter of the respondents attached with their reply as Annexure R/2 by which in the same department the service of ad hoc Statistical (4 of 5) [ CW-503/2006] Assistants and Computers, initially appointed in the year 1981, were regularized in the year 1991 and they were permitted to count that ad hoc service for the purpose of seniority as well as eligibility for promotion to the higher grades, held that the applicants are entitled to count their seniority from the date of their initial appointment. At this stage, it will be useful to quote Para 11 of the judgment, which thus reads:-

"11. It is thus clear from the above that the legal position is well settled which is being followed for a vary long time and i.e. that even if the initial appointments are ad hoc but such ad hoc appointees have continued for a fairly long period then such an appointment cannot be held to be purely stop-gap or fortuitous. In such a case the persons so appointment. In the instant case before us, it is not even the case of the respondents that the initia appointment of the applicants was de-hors the rules. They have been appointed after the due process and by a competent authority. This becomes clear from the letter of appointment itself. This being the case and they having continued for so many years, in our considered view, the applicants are entitled to count their services right from 30.11.1983. This is more so when in the same Department Statistical Assistants and computes appointed on ad hoc basis, like the applicants, in the year 1981 have been allowed to count their ad hoc services for the purpose of seniority as well as for eligibility for promotion to the higher grades. In this background, we are of the view that the applicants are fully entitled to count their seniority from the date of their initial appointment i.e. from the completed the requisite qualifying service of 12 years to become eligible fro first financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme."

Accordingly, the OA was allowed and directions were given to the respondents to grant benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme in terms of DOP&Ts letter dated 9.8.99 by taking into consideration their ad hoc services as Data Entry Operator Grade-B.

7. As already stated above, we are of the firm view that the case of the applicant is fully covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Arnold Grey & Ors. (supra). In fact, the respondents have granted the ACP benefit to two of the applicant namely Smt. Vandana Agrawal and Smt. Sunita Rani by taking their ad hoc service as Data Entry Operator Grade-B into account for the purpose of ACP who were regularized along with the applicant by the same order Annexure A/4. We see no reason why the (5 of 5) [ CW-503/2006] respondents have adopted different criteria for similarly situated persons who were also regularized vide order dated 5.5.93. It has come on record that the initial appointment of the applicant was not de hors the rule but he was appointed after following the due process by the competent authority. Thus, in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Direct Recruit Class0II Engineers Officer's Association vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1990 SCC (L&S) 339, the seniority has to be counted from the date of initial appointment. Moreover the respondents in their reply have not uttered even a single word as to how the judgement rendered by this Tribunal in the case of Arnold Grey (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case."

Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana vs. Haryana Veterinary & Ahts Association & Anr. (2008) 8 SCC 4.

However, in view of the fact that the Tribunal has relied on the earlier decision which was confirmed, no interference is required in the matter.

Hence, the petitions being devoid of merit deserve to be dismissed. The same are dismissed.

(VIJAY KUMAR VYAS), J. (K.S. JHAVERI), J.

A.Sharma/42-45

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur