Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Naveen Joshi vs M/O Agriculture on 21 August, 2024
1
Item No. 60 (C-3)
O.A. No. 3190/2017
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 3190/2017
This the 21st day of August, 2024
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Naveen Joshi, Stenographer, Group B,
Aged about 36 years,
S/o Sh. LD Joshi,
R/o C-2/72, Lodhi Colony,
New Delhi - 110003.
... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. MK Bhardwaj)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Agricultural Research and Farmers' welfare,
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Secretary,
Department of Agricultural Research & Education
(DARE) & Director General,
Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR),
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001.
3. Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)
Through its Secretary,
Additional Secretary, DARE,
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Nirmal Mishra and Mr. U Srivastav)
2
Item No. 60 (C-3)
O.A. No. 3190/2017
O R D E R (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J):-
1. The applicant was initially appointed as Junior Stenographer in one of the Institutes of Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), namely, Vivekananda Parvatiya Krishi Anusandhan Sansthan (VPKAS) on 14.02.2006. Thereafter, on his request dated 27.09.2007, the applicant was transferred from the said Institute to ICAR Headquarter by an order dated 26.11.2007 w.e.f. 16.11.2007. The applicant was due to be promoted to the post of Personal Assistant (PA) and accordingly, he preferred a representation for the same on 10.02.2016 claiming that in spite of his eligibility for the post of PA he is not being considered for promotion, followed by a reminder dated 12.05.2016. The respondents accepted that they have promoted similarly placed persons on 06.01.2017 ignoring the claim of the applicant for the reason that the applicant did not have the desired eligibility in terms of the Recruitment Rules (RRs). To clarify, the service rendered by the applicant at the Institute, that is, VPKAS was not counted towards the eligibility for the post of PA as is reflected in the impugned order dated 26.07.2017. 3
Item No. 60 (C-3) O.A. No. 3190/2017 Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has filed the present O.A. seeking the following relief(s):-
"(i) To declare the action of respondents in not counting past regular service as Stenographer (Grade-III) in ICAR-VPKAS, Almora for determining eligibility for promotion to the post of Personal Assistant (P.A) at ICAR Hqrs. as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and direct the respondents to consider and promote the applicant to the post of Personal Assistant (P.A) by counting his past service rendered as Stenographer (Grade- III) at ICAR-
VPKAS, Almora with all consequential benefits from due date.
(ii) To set aside the impugned order dated 26.07.2017 and direct the respondents to consider the claim of applicant for promotion to the post of P.A from the date of promotion of Amit Bhaskar by holding review DPC/ DPC and by taking into account his entire service rendered as Stenographer (Grade-III) at ICAR- VPKAS, Almora and ICAR Hqrs., New Delhi as eligible service with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay.
(iii) To direct the respondents to ignore the conditions imposed vide office order dated 27.09.2007 / 26.11.2007 being contrary to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and terms & conditions of appointment of applicant as well as DOP&T instructions.
(iv) To allow the OA with exemplary costs on the respondents.
(v) Any other or further relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Learned counsel for the applicant explains that at the relevant point in time, the applicant was initially working in 4 Item No. 60 (C-3) O.A. No. 3190/2017 one of the Institutes of ICAR on a regular basis as Junior Stenographer which is equivalent to the post of Stenographer Grade III. Therefore, he claims that the service rendered by him at one of the Institute be computed towards counting of service for promotion. He explains, admittedly, that the applicant was transferred on his own request to the ICAR Headquarters and his pay was accordingly fixed on the same pay scale to which he was working at one of the ICAR Institutes. Therefore, learned counsel claims that the applicant's service could not be excluded from the eligibility for promotion to the post of Personal Assistant. He submits that the applicant is rendering continuous service with effect from 14.02.2006 itself.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the O.A. and while drawing attention to the order dated 26.11.2007 states that while the applicant was appointed on transfer basis at ICAR Headquarters, his pay was fixed at Rs. 4000-100-6000/- and this appointment was treated as a fresh appointment; accordingly, he was placed at the junior most level to all the existing Stenographers Grade III. He adds that this transfer was dated 26.11.2007 and the 5 Item No. 60 (C-3) O.A. No. 3190/2017 applicant has chosen to file this O.A. in the year 2017, hence, the cause of the applicant does not stand any ground. He submits that the applicant is estopped from agitating his grievance at such a belated stage. The cadres at the Institutes and the Headquarter are different and hence, not comparable.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. To summarize, the applicant was appointed as Junior Stenographer in one of the Institutes of ICAR. On his own request, he was transferred to the ICAR Headquarters vide order dated 26.11.2007. For better understanding the said order is reproduced verbatim below:-
"The Competent Authority of Indian Council of Agricultural Research has approved the appointment of Sh. Naveen Joshi to the post of Stenographer (Grade-III) in the pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 at ICAR Hqrs. on transfer from Vivekananda Parvatiya Krishi Anusandhan Sansthan, Almora w.e.f. 16.11.2007 (FN).
The transfer of Sh. Naveen Joshi is on the following terms and conditions:
1. His appointment in ICAR Hqrs will be treated as fresh appointment and he will be ranked junior most to all the existing Stenographers (Grade-III) on the date of his transfer at ICAR Hqrs.
2. Past service rendered by him in VPKAS, Almora will not count for deciding eligibility for appearing in 6 Item No. 60 (C-3) O.A. No. 3190/2017 LDCE for the post of PA to be conducted by the ICAR Hqrs.
3. He will not be entitled to TTA/Joining Time etc. as his transfer has been nade at his own request."
6. The order reproduced herein above is read in conjunction with the Recruitment Rules (page 37). The post of Personal Assistant is that it is to be filled up 100% by promotion from the feeder post of Stenographer Grade III. In the present case, the applicant was evidently working as Junior Stenographer initially and then as Stenographer Grade III, however, the service rendered by him at one of the Institutes of ICAR has been ignored while computing the eligibility for the post of Personal Assistant (PA). The eligibility for the post of PA as per the RRs is 10 years. In terms of the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents, the applicant is short by precisely the same period as the service rendered by him at the Institute.
7. The applicant was transferred to the ICAR Headquarter on his own request on the same post and scale. Therefore, there was no reason why the service rendered by him at one of the Institutes could not be counted towards eligibility for promotion. Moreover, the RRs for the post of Personal Assistant state that the feeder cadre for the post of PA is 7 Item No. 60 (C-3) O.A. No. 3190/2017 Stenographer Grade III and it adds that in case none is available, the same could be filled by deputation, to clarify by those employees working at one of the Institutes on regular basis. If the service rendered by a deputationist could be counted towards eligibility to the post of Personal Assistant, then the applicant who has worked on a regular basis at one of the Institutes and later at the Headquarters could not be denied the same benefit. With respect to the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the O.A. was filed after a considerable delay, hence, the applicant is stopped from approaching this Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the applicant was appointed with one of the institutes of ICAR in the year 2006 and was transferred to the ICAR Headquarters in the year 2007. The transfer order states that it is a fresh appointment. However, his grievance would, according to us, commence from the date, he was ignored for promotion to the post of PA which happened in the year 2017 and that is the year when the applicant approached the Tribunal. Hence, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted. He places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA No. 5122/2007 titled Dilip Kumar Garg and 8 Item No. 60 (C-3) O.A. No. 3190/2017 another Versus State of UP and others (para 14) to support his contentions.
8. We have gone through the judgment and are in agreement with his submissions that the respondents have full authority to determine the eligibility in terms of the RRs and on the basis of the RRs to consider the applicant who was entitled for promotion after counting his service at the ICAR Institute. The RRs are guiding principles and cannot be interpreted arbitrarily.
9. In view of what has been discussed and detailed above, the O.A. is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.07.2017 is quashed and set aside. The applicant's service rendered between 14.02.2006 and 15.11.2007 at the Institute shall be counted towards eligibility for promotion to the post of Personal Assistant. The respondents shall conduct a review DPC for the said post in which the juniors of the applicant were considered and in case the applicant is found fit, he shall be extended promotion to the post of Personal Assistant. It is made clear that the applicant would be entitled to all the consequential benefits arising from this reconsideration. These directions shall be complied with 9 Item No. 60 (C-3) O.A. No. 3190/2017 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
10. The O.A. stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Pratima K. Gupta)
Member (A) Member (J)
/dd/