Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
S Thatchinamoorthy vs M/O Communication & It on 1 March, 2023
& 1 OA 172/2013 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH. ce OA/310/00172/2613 Dated the 4°" dayof March Two Thousand Twenty Three CORAM: HON'BLE MR. T: JACOB, Member (A) HON'BLE MS. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, Member (3) M. Thatchina Moorthy, S/o. M. Sornavel, No. 1/92, North Park Street, 'E' Ground Floor, Malolan Apartments, Venkatapuram, Ambattur, Chennai 53. .. Applicant By Advocate M/s. R. Singgaravelan Vs 1.Union of India rep by, The Secretary to Government, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pensions, North Block, New Delhi 110001. 2.Union of India, rep by, The Director, Department of Personnel & Training, Lok Nayak Bhavan, Khan Market, New Delhi 110003. .-. Respondents By Advocates Mr. Su. Srinivasan, SCGSC & Ms. Shakila Anand S\\3 5 C) 2 OA.172/2013 ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(3)) By this OA, the applicant has prayed the following relief :-
"To call for the records on the file of the 17 respondent in connection with the order passed by him in his Proc. No. 153/2004/CS.III dated 13.02.2004 and quash the same and direct the respondents to give alternative employment to the applicant as per the CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff} Rules, 1990 cr pass any other appropriate order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice."
2. The brief facts of the case in nutshell are as under 7- i The applicant was initially selected for appointment to the post of Primary Teacher in the school run by Combat Vehicle Research Development Establishment on 11.11.1994, The applicant and similarly placed employees filed an OA 592 of 1990 before this Tribunal seeking regularisation along with consequential benefits which was dismissed vide order dt. 26.04.1991. Against the same, the applicants therein approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP Nos. 11083-84/1991 which were also dismissed. While so, a sudden decision was taken to close the school and all the employees were served with the notice for termination of service dated 01.08.2001 proposing to terminate their service after a month w.e.f. 01.09.2001. Agerieved, the applicant along with similarly placed employees filed an OA 440 of 2001 and batch and sought a direction to run the school without closure or provide alternative appointment on the respondent department. The said OAs were. disposed of with the following observations :
3 OA 172/201325. In view of the above, we are of the view that we cannot give a direction as prayed for. At the same time, we make it clear that an abrupt closure of the school is a heavy loss to all the applicants. It is only appropriate on the part of the respondents to see that they are placed in some of the employment, For the said puitpose, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that even now they are prepared to recommend the names of the applicants. whenever the applicants apply for any job and whatever assistance they can provide will be provided We record the said submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the applicants wanted us to determine the amount of compensation as provided in the service conditions.
Since no materials are placed before us to determine the same, we decline to decide the same and also in view of the decisions cited supra. But we record the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the applicants will be paid "reasonable compensation"."
However, this Tribunal did not interfere in the action of the respondents closing down the school. It was further observed that the applicants were entitled to the benefits as provided in the service conditions including 'reasonable compensation'. It was left to the applicants who were not teachers to agitate their rights in accordance with law. Against the said. order, the applicants approached the Hon'ble Madras High-Court in WPs No. 20179 to 20182 of 2001 and batch which were disposed of on 13.03.2003 with a direction to the applicants therein to make their representations to the Department of Personnel and Training for consideration in accordance with law. The representations of the applicants for alternative employment was rejected vide order dt. 13.02.2004, Against the said rejection, OAs 397/2004 to 410/2004 were filed before this Tribunal which were allowed on 25.01.2005 with a direction to include them in the surplus pool. Against the said order, the department approached the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WP No. 26493 of 2011 which was disposed of vide order dt.
21.03.2012 with a direction to implement the order dt. 25.01.2005 within two i} 4 OA 172/2013 weeks. Two candidates who were allied non teaching staff had filed OAs No. $54 & 855 of 2002 seeking a similar prayer. The OAs were allowed vide order dt. 07.04.2004 against which the department filed WPs 27558 & 27559 of 2004 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. The Hon'ble High Court disposed of the WPs vide order dt. 04.04.2005 with a direction to implement the order of this Tribunal on or before 16.05.2005. The OAs 397 to 410/2004 filed by the similarly placed applicants who were Primary Teachers/Trained Graduate Teachers in the same school were allowed subject to the result of SLP in C. C. Nos. 11346-11361/2003 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the respondents were directed to consider their claim and include their names in the surplus pool and to consider them for redeployment in Government establishments or provide alternative employment or transfer them to any offices under the respondents as per the CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990 in accordance with their position in the surplus pool.
ii. The OA 69/2004 filed by one Mr. S. Joseph Raj, Librarian, CVRDE School was disposed of vide order dt. 10.02.2005 directing the respondents to consider his case in the light of directions of this Tribunal and Hon'ble High Court of Madras under the CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990 and the past service rendered by him. The respondents filed a WP No. 13067 of 2005 against the said order which was disposed of vide order dt. 30.04.2009 with a similar direction:as in the OA, ili. The Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 14962-14963/2010 filed by the 5 OA.172/2013 department against the said order of Hon'ble High Court was also disposed of on the same lines vide order dt. 30.04.2009. The Civil Appeals No, 4666 of 2006 & 4667 of 2006 filed by the department against the orders of Hon'ble High Court of Madras dt. 13.03.2006 and 04.04.2005 (supra) were dismissed as infructuous by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide their order dt. 02.06.2011. Aggrieved by the order dt, 13.02.2004 of the DoPT rejecting his request for redeployment, the applicant has filed this OA.
3.i, The respondents have filed reply opposing the claim of the applicant. They have stated that this OA has been filed in the year 2013 though the original cause of action arose in the years 2000-2001. Hence, the OA suffers from delay and latches on the part of the applicant in filing this OA. The OA also suffers from non-joinder of parties since the school in which the applicant was employed was under the administrative control of Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE), Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) which has not been arrayed as a respondent. Since the applicant are not Central Government employees, there is no question of considering them for redeployment under the CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990.
ii. It is submitted that since there was no sufficient children to continue the school resulting in poor children-teacher ratio, it was decided by the competent authorities of DRDO and the parton of the school with the Willingness of CVRDE employees, to close down the school in the academic year (2000-2001) (9 6 OA 172/2013 and made an alternative arrangement to transfer the existing children to a private school/educational society and also to make one-time settlement of payment of reasonable terminal benefits to the teaching and non-teaching staff of CVRDE school. Pursuant to the direction of this Tribunal in OAs No. 440 to 455, 436 and 568 of 2001 filed by the employees of the school against the decision of its closure by the department, CVRDE, DRDO calculated "reasonable compensation package along with terminal benefits" amounting to Rs. 42,83,200/- for all the ex-CVRDE school teaching non-teaching staff by July 2002 and was kept ready for disbursement. The fact that the ex-CVRDE School Staff were not Government servants has been brought in the additional affidavit dt. 28.01.2016 in SLP No, 19307 of 2012 filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble Supreme Court was satisfied and observed that the compensation offered in terms of the said affidavit was a reasonable one. It was further directed that the said compensation be paid to the respondent employees therein within three months. Two ex-CVRDE employees viz., Mrs, Samanthakamani and Mrs. Jayalakshmi were also paid the compensation package with terminal benefits without any interest. The applicant cannot be considered for redeployment in DRDO under CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990 as the CVRDE school (now closed) was only a private body. Accordingly, they pray for dismissal of the OA.
4. Heard both sides and perused the records.
2. It is to be noted that the applicant and other similarly situated employees 7 OA172/2013 have challenged the order of discharge from service before this Tribunal in the 1* round of litigation in the year 2001, By order dt. 26.09.2001, this Tribunal has disposed of the OA with a direction to the respondents declaring that the applicants are entitled to benefits as are provided in service conditions including reasonable compensation,
6. It is also to be noted that the said order has been challenged by the applicant and other employees before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras and by order dt. 13.03.2003, the Hon'ble High Court has directed the applicants to submit their representations by invoking the rules to work out their benefit as per the scheme framed under the provisions of CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff} Rules, 1990.
7, The said order has been challenged by the department before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4666/2006 with Civil Appeal No. 4667/2006. Pending the said appeal, the respondent department considered the representations of the applicants and other employees submitted in tune of the direction of the Hon'ble High Court and rejected in the year 2004. Therefore, upon hearing after submission by the respondent department, Hon'ble Supreme Court recorded the same and dismissed the Civil Appeals since the appeals filed by the respondents became infructuous, It is to be noted that the said order of rejection passed by the respondents in the year 2003, 2004 and 2005 has been challenged by some of the employees by filing an OA before this Tribunal in the 2" round of litigation. The same has been disposed of in favour of the applicants 3 0A.172/2013 in that OA. by order dt. 25.01.2005 and directed the respondent. to consider the claim of the applicants therein by including the name in the surplus pool to consider them for redeployment in Government establishment or provide alternative employment or transfer them to any other department as per the CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990 in accordance with their position in the surplus pool.
8. Against the said order, Union of India has filed the WP before the Hon'ble Madras High Court and by order dt. 24.03.2012, the Hon'ble High Court has upheld the order passed by this Tribunal.
9. Being aggrieved by the order of Tribunal as well as the order of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the 2™ round of litigation, the respondent department have challenged the same before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal No. 19307 of 2012. After hearing the submissions made by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the respondent department who was the appellant before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said Special Leave to Appeal was willing to determine and pay to the respondent teachers reasonable compensation in terms of the order dt. 26.09.2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. It was further submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that similar other employees of the school in question had been given compensation which they have accepted as full and final settlement of their claims. The respondent department have requested the Hon'ble Supreme Court after determining the amount of reasonable compensation payable to the 9 OA 172/2013 respondent teacher and also indicated that the amount that was payable to similarly situated teachers of the schools, they will bring all the details by way of an additional affidavit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted the permission thereafter. By filing additional affidavit dt. 28.01.2016, the respondent department as worked out with the reasonable compensation in respect of the respondent employees before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as it was also agreed to as the competent authority of the DRDO has taken a decision to offer them interest as per the interest rate offered to the employees provident fund account holders in the respective years on the amount payable to each one of the respondents No. 2 to 15 from the date it became due till the date of payment. In their additional affidavit, the respondents also requested the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the payment of compensation followed with the interest may not be treated as a precedent.
10. It is to be noted that when again the matter has been taken up for hearing on 01.09.2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was satisfied with the additional affidavit and accepted the submissions of the respondent department. After recording the same in their order, the SLP was disposed of accordingly.
Il, It is to be noted that the present applicant who has though approached this Tribunal in the 1* round of litigation was not a party in the said SLP. In view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the challenge against the redeployment orders has been settled finally with a reasonable compensation along with the interest agreed by the respondent department before the Hon'ble {> 19 OA 172/2013 Supreme Court.
12. It is to be noted that though the applicant has challenged the order of discharge / termination in the 1* round of litigation, however, he has not challenged the order dt. 13.02.2004 passed by the respondents immediately pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble High Court. It is to be noted that he sat as a fencesitter and subsequent to the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras he has filed the present OA to challenge the order dt. 13.02.2004 and claim the similar benefit of order dt. 25.01.2005 of this Tribunal and order at. 24.03.2012 of the Hon'ble High Court. It is to be noted that it was well within the knowledge of the applicant that pursuant to the direction of this Tribunal passed in the year 2001, the authorities have already calculated the reasonable compensation in the month of May 2001 itself. However, the applicant himself has not chosen to accept the same. Neither he filed any application before this Tribunal to challenge the order dt. 13.02.2004 immediately, nor he intervened in the matter filed by the other similarly situated persons before the Courts at that time.
13. It is to be noted that the rejection order passed by the respondents in pursuant to the direction of Hon'ble High Court with regard to the applicant as challenged in the present OA in the year in the year 2013 which is the 2™ round of litigation. In view of the facts which is mentioned herein above, since the matter has been settled in the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the submission made by the respondents in respect of grant of reasonable compensation has ll OA 172/2013 been accepted, the question of granting redeployment to the applicant does not arise as the relief in respect of deployment has been modified before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as mentioned above. As far as concerned to the applicant's claim for which he has agreed now and on the basis of oral submission made by learned counsel for applicant at the time of hearing, he is ready and willing to accept reasonable compensation. Hence, regarding the order of the respondents dt. 13.02.2004, no interference of this Tribunal is called for and the prayer of the applicant for directing the respondents to give alternative employment is rejected. However, he has also sought for interest over the delayed payment as paid to the other respondent employees who were before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid Civil Appeals No. 4666 of 2006 & 4667 of 2006 and Special Leave to Appeal No. 19307 of 2012.
14, Itis to be noted that applicant has chosen himself to sit as fencesitter as he has neither challenged the said order of rejection of redeployment in the time limit framed in the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, nor he has intervened in the matters filed by the other similarly situated persons. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the applicant is not entitled to claim any interest over the said payment of reasonable compensation as he himself has not approached the authority and claim the same though admittedly, the respondents are willing to pay the compensation amount since from the year 2001. In view of the same, the applicant is directed to approach the concerned respondent for receiving the compensation amount after receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such am .) 12 0A172/2013 request, the respondents are directed to release the said compensation as sanctioned: in the year 2001 and - ¢ to pay as early as possible. As far as concemed:the interest no case is made out to grant such a benefit.
15. ° In-view-of the above, the OA is disposed of. No order as to costs.
we ane Fone ee