Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mr. Raghuvinder Singh Ruhil vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 28 November, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.1879/2013 Thursday, this the 28th day of November 2013 Honble Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Member (J) Honble Mr. P.K. Basu, Member (A) Mr. Raghuvinder Singh Ruhil r/o Mr. Kuldip Singh Ruhil r/o RZ-H-166, Gali No.6 Rajnagar Part II, Palam Colony, New Delhi-77 ..Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Ajesh Luthra) Versus 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through the Chief Secretary 5th Floor, Delhi Sachivalaya, New Delhi 2. The Principal Secretary (Services) GNCT of Delhi 7th Level, B Wing Delhi Secretariat, IP Estate, New Delhi ..Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. Vijay Pandita) O R D E R (ORAL)
Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj:
The respondents have denied ad hoc promotion to the applicant in DANICS on the plea that his ACRs for the years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2011-12 and integrity certificate were not received from the concerned Department, despite issuance of reminders to them. Relevant excerpt of paragraph 4.6 of the reply by the respondents reads as under:-
4.6. The ACRs in respect of Shri Raghuvinder Singh Ruhil, Grade-I DASS for the 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2011-12 and Integrity Certificate were not received from concerned department. In this regard, the department had issued reminders to Head of Department and individual concerned to furnish the requisite documents. The requisite documents in respect of Shri Raghuvinder Singh Ruhil, Gr. I (DASS) Has not been received from his Head of Department or from him. Hence, this department vide Order No.626 F.No.30/26/2012/S.I dated 14.11.2012 has appointed the Gr. I DASS against the ex-cadre post equivalent to DANICS on Adhoc and emergent basis carrying higher duties and responsibilities whose requisite documents has been received. Shri Raghuvinder Singh Ruhil, Gr. I DASS has not been appointed against the ex-cadre post equivalent to DANICS on Adhoc and emergent basis due to non receiving of requisite documents.
2. Mr. Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel for applicant submitted that if the concerned Department could not discharge its part of duty required in terms of the procedure, the applicant cannot be put to loss. He relied upon the recent Order of this Tribunal passed in Sanjay Jha v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & another (O.A.No.1299/2013) decided on 18.7.2013. The relevant excerpt of the said Order reads thus:
14. In the circumstances, this OA is also allowed directing the respondents to consider the case of the applicant herein for promotion to the ex-cadre post of DANICS, if he is otherwise found eligible with effect from the date from which his juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits without back wages within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.
3. Learned counsel for applicant also made a reference to paragraph 4.15 of the Original Application wherein a reference has been made to certain Original Applications decided by this Tribunal dealing with the identical issues. The said paragraph reads as under:
4.15 That this Honble Tribunal has adjudicated and granted relief in similar/ identical cases where last year i.e. 2011, the same wrong was committed by the respondents in respects to the officers belonging to the same stream having higher seniority than the applicant vide various OAs viz. OA No.3898/2011, OA 3986/2011, 4054/2011, 390/2012, 496/2012, 497/2012. The said orders have been implemented also. Copies of various orders of this Honble Tribunal in the above noted OAs are annexed herewith as Annexure A/9 (Colly). Copies of implementation orders in few such cases is also annexed herewith as Annexure A/10 (Colly). However, in one case i.e. Anil Kaushals case, the respondents did challenge the order vide CWP No.4322/2012 before Honble Delhi High Court however, the CWP was dismissed vide order dated 03.09.2012 (Annexure A/11).
4. It is also submitted that so far approximately 20 Original Applications involving the issue raised in the present Original Application have been decided by this Tribunal. Mr. Vijay Pandita, learned counsel for respondents could not draw any distinction between the cases referred to by Mr. Luthra and present Original Application.
5. In Sub Inspector Rooplal & another v. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi & others, (2000) 1 SCC 644, the Honble Apex Court has observed as follows:
12. At the outset, we must express our serious dissatisfaction in regard to the manner in which a Coordinate Bench of the tribunal has overruled, in effect, an earlier judgment of another Coordinate Bench of the same tribunal. This is opposed to all principles of judicial discipline. If at all, the subsequent Bench of the tribunal was of the opinion that the earlier view taken by the Coordinate Bench of the same tribunal was incorrect, it ought to have referred the matter to a larger Bench so that the difference of opinion between the two Coordinate Benches on the same point could have been avoided. It is not as if the latter Bench was unaware of the judgment of the earlier Bench but knowingly it proceeded to disagree with the said judgment against all known rules of precedents. Precedents which enunciate rules of law form the foundation of administration of justice under our system. This is a fundamental principle which every Presiding Officer of a Judicial Forum ought to know, for consistency in interpretation of law alone can lead to public confidence in our judicial system. This Court has laid down time and again precedent law must be followed by all concerned; deviation from the same should be only on a procedure known to law. A subordinate Court is bound by the enunciation of law made by the superior Courts. A coordinate Bench of a Court cannot pronounce judgment contrary to declaration of law made by another Bench. It can only refer it to a larger Bench if it disagrees with the earlier pronouncement. This Court in the case of Tribhuivandas Purshottamdas Thakur v. Ratilal Motilal Patel, (1968) 1 SCR 455 : (AIR 1968 SC 372) while dealing with a case in which a Judge of the High Court had failed to follow the earlier judgment of a larger Bench of the same Court observed thus (para 11 of AIR) :-
"The judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court was binding upon Raju, J. If the learned Judge was of the view that the decision of Bhagwati, J. in Pinjare Karimbhai's case (1962 (3) Guj LR 529) and of Macleod, C.J., in Haridas's case (AIR 1922 Bom 149) did not lay down the correct law or rule of practice, it was open to him to recommend to the Chief Justice that the question be considered by a larger Bench. Judicial decorum, propriety and discipline required that he should not ignore it. Our system of administration of justice aims at certainty in the law and that can be achieved only if Judges do not ignore decisions by Courts of coordinate authority or of superior authority. Gajendragadkar, C. J. observed in Lala Bhagwan v. Ram Chand, (AIR 1965 SC 1767).
"It is hardly necessary to emphasis that considerations of judicial propriety and decorum require that if a learned single Judge hearing a matter is inclined to take the view that the earlier decisions of the High Court, whether of a Division Bench or of a single Judge, need to be re-considered, he should not embark upon that enquiry sitting as a single Judge, but should refer the matter to a Division Bench, or, in a proper case, place the relevant papers before the Chief Justice to enable him to constitute a larger Bench to examine the question. That is the proper and traditional way to deal with such matters and it is founded on healthy principles of judicial decorum and propriety."
13. We are indeed sorry to note the attitude of the tribunal in this case which, after noticing the earlier judgment of a coordinate Bench and after noticing the judgment of this Court, has still thought it fit to proceed to take a view totally contrary to the view taken in the earlier judgment thereby creating a judicial uncertainty in regard to the declaration of law involved in this case. Because of this approach of the latter Bench of the tribunal in this case, a lot of valuable time of the Court is wasted and the parties to this case have been put to considerable hardship.
6. Being bound by the view taken by the coordinate Benches, we dispose of the present Original Application with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant herein for promotion to the ex-cadre post of DANICS, if he is otherwise found eligible with effect from the date from which his juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits without back wages within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
( P.K. Basu ) ( A.K. Bhardwaj ) Member (A) Member (J) November 28, 2013 /sunil/