Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Jag Mohan Lal Gupta vs Union Of India Through on 8 October, 2014
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-3341/2012
With
OA-3586/2012
OA-3599/2012
Reserved on : 26.09.2014.
Pronounced on : 08.10.2014.
Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
OA-3341/2012
Sh. Jag Mohan Lal Gupta,
S/o Sh. Ram Kishan Gupta,
R/o C-9/2, Model Town-III,
Delhi-54. .. Applicant
(through Sh. Amit Anand, Advocate)
Versus
Union of India through
1. Dy. Director General (P.A.F.),
Postal Account Wing,
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-1.
2. General Manager (Finance),
Postal Accounts Office,
Delhi-54. .. Respondents
(through Sh. Rajesh Katyal, Advocate)
OA-3586/2012
1. Sh. G.S. Nagar,
S/o Sh. F.S. Nagar,
Presently working as Office Assistant
(S.B.C.O.), Noida Head Post Office.
2. Sh. Mahipal Singh Sisodia,
S/o late Sh. Mohan Singh,
Postal Asst., Ghaziabad H.O. .. Applicants
(through Mrs. Meenu Mainee, Advocate)
Versus
Union of India : Through
1. The Secretary,
Ministry of Communication
and Information Technology,
Department of Post,
Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary,
DOPT, North Block,
New Delhi.
3. The Director of Accounts,
(Postal Account Office),
Lucknow.
4. Chief Post Master,
General U.P. Circle,
Lucknow. .. Respondents
(through Sh. Manjeet Singh Reen, Advocate)
OA-3599/2012
Sh. Mahabir Singh,
S/o Sh. Dhanpat Singh,
R/o H.No. 2314, Sector-15,
Sonepat, Haryana. Applicant
(through Mrs. Meenu Mainee, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through
Secretary (Posts) Deptt. of Posts,
Ministry of Communication & IT,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi.
2. Director of Accounts (Postal),
Haryana Circle,
107, The Mall, Ambala. . Respondents
(through Sh. Manjeet Singh Reen, Advocate)
O R D E R
Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) OA No. 3341/2012 came up for admission before this Tribunal on 04.10.2012. It was admitted and as an interim measure, the respondents were directed to permit the applicant to appear in Part-II examination for the post of JAO provisionally subject to the out come of the O.A. OA No. 3586/2012 came up for admission before this Tribunal on 25.10.2012 and it was allowed at the admission stage itself by an order, the operative part of which reads as follows:-
5. In any case, the concept of age bar can apply only in the case of fresh recruitments and not in the case of a departmental examination i.e. LDCE, like the present one, which is conducted for the process of internal promotions within the Department from one post to another, when the employee is well within the confines of the Department, and the time period as to when the employee has attained what age is known to respondent authorities themselves, and yet they delayed holding the Part-II LDCE Examination. Therefore, in unequivocal terms, it is held that the concept of age bar cannot be applied to the present Part-II LDCE. Hence, the OA is allowed at the admission stage itself, and the respondents are directed to permit the applicants to appear in the Part-II LDCE Examination. No costs. On the same day OA No. 3599/2012 was also allowed for parity of reasons. Thereafter, the judgments passed in these OAs were reviewed vide Review Application Nos. RA-82/2013 in OA-3586/2012 and RA-120/2013 in OA-3599/2012. These RAs were allowed and both these OAs were restored for fresh adjudication.
2. Since the issue involved in all the three OAs is the same, they are now being disposed of by this common order.
3. Brief Facts of these cases are that the applicants had appeared for Part-I examination for promotion to the post of JAO. For such promotion passing of both Part-I and Part-II examination was necessary. However, the respondents did not conduct the Part-II examination for a period of almost 15 years. Meanwhile, the applicants had become over age and were not permitted to appear for the Part-II examination. By interim direction applicant of OA-3341/2012 was directed to appear for the same provisionally. Applicants of other OAs, namely, 3586/2012 & OA-3599/2012 could also take the examination as their OAs had earlier been allowed and were only subsequently restored for fresh adjudication.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that these OAs are similar to OA-4164/2012 (Shri Raj Pal Vs. UOI & Ors.), which was allowed on 11.12.2012. Review Application No. 129/2013 filed to review this order was also dismissed on 27.05.2014. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the judgment of the Tribunal in this O.A. has been implemented and Sh. Raj Pal has since been promoted vide order dated 22.08.2014, a copy of which was made available during the course of hearing of these O.As. The applicants have sought the same benefit as was allowed to the applicant of OA-4164/2012. We find that OA-4164/2012 was allowed on the basis of judgment passed in OA-314/HR/2012 (Shamsher Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI) dated 04.10.2012 by Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that this issue has also been adjudicated by Patna Bench of this Tribunal in their judgment dated 29.05.2013 in OA-935/2012 (Bhartiya Postal Accounts Officers Employees Association Vs. UOI & Ors.). A copy of the judgment in that O.A. was made available to us by the respondents. We have perused the same and we find that the issue involved in this O.A. as mentioned in the first part of the judgment is as follows:-
The applicants have filed this original application to declare the Junior Accounts Officers Service, Postal Wing Group C Recruitment Rules, 2002 [Annexure-4) as redundant and to quash the decision of Department of Posts dated 11.0-9.2012 [Annexure-1] for holding special Departmental Competitive Examination JAO Part II [Now AAO] for promotion to the post/cadre of AAO as the same has become redundant with a further prayer to direct the respondents to notify the newly framed Recruitment Rules for AAO Cadre before filling up the vacant posts of AAOs.
6. Thus, it appears that the main issue with which this Tribunal was concerned in the aforesaid O.A. was the validity of the Recruitment Rules of 2002 and not whether the candidates who had passed Part-I examination could be treated as having become ineligible for Part-II on account of being over age. Even in this judgment in Para-6 it has been observed as follows:-
Here the core question is when now Rule has not come into force, how far action of the Department in pursuing the departmental examination shall be faulted which is in consonance with the existing Rule, which has not yet been repealed. This 2002 Rules has not become obsolete or infractions by amalgamation of the cadre. In view of recommendation of the 6th CPC only for the purpose of convenience the designation has been changed with one pay structure but that does not erase the Recruitment Rules which was in existence. Since in order to become AAO one has to pass Part I and Part II Examination and since several persons are in the pipeline and have in fact appeared in Part II Examination after clearing Part I Examination, their promotional avenue cannot be throttled. We come across of the first time, an Association not desirous of granting higher grade/cadre to its employees. Naturally when the new Rules shall come into play, it will deal with the candidates who failed to clear Part I and Part II Examination as per previous Rule and Law promotion to AAO grade shall be given under the present structure. Thus, in our opinion, this judgment does not help the respondents since the issue involved in the same was different and also since in this judgment also it has been observed that promotional avenues of those who had taken the Part-I examination earlier cannot be throttled.
7. On the other hand we find that OA-314/HR/2012 relied upon by the applicants dealt with exactly the same issued as is involved in the present OAs as is clear from the facts mentioned in Para-2 of the judgment:-
2. Applicant in O.A. No. 314/2012 is the holder of post of Senior Accountant; while the contesting applicant in O.A. No. 434/2012 holds the post of Postal Assistant. That the next promotion for the holders of both the posts aforementioned is to the post of Junior Accounts Officer (presently designated as Assistant Accounts Officer) is not in controversy. For becoming eligible for consideration for promotion to that post, the candidates from the feeder cadre have to clear a Competitive Departmental Examination which has parts I & II. The contesting applicants, it is no longer a matter of dispute, cleared Part-I of the aforesaid examination a number of year ago. They could not appear at the Part-II examination as none came to be held for about a period of 15 years. Both the contesting applicants are presently over-age. The applicant in O.A. No. 314/2012 is over-age by four months; while the contesting applicant in O.A. 434/2012 is over-age by about five years. This O.A. was allowed by the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal by its order dated 04.10.2012, the operative part of which reads as follows:-
5. It is common ground that a Limited Deptt. Exam is to be held in the very near future and the candidates willing to appear thereat have to file their applications by tomorrow. We would, accordingly, allow this O.A. and direct the respondents to treat the applicants as eligible for appearing at that examination. We would, even at the cost of repetition, make it clear that eligibility shall not be denied to the applicant on the plea of their being over-age.
6. Leaned counsel for the applicants states that he would, for the time being, reserve liberty to file an O.A. afresh to claim consequential benefits, if the applicants taste success at the relevant examination.
7. There shall be no order as to costs of the cause in the facts and circumstances of the case
8. After perusing the aforesaid judgment, we are convinced that the present OAs are squarely covered by the judgment of Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in OA-314/2012 dated 04.10.2012. We, therefore, allow these OAs and direct that the applicants herein would be entitled to the same benefits as were extended to applicants of OA-314/2012 of Chandigarh Bench. These benefits would be extended to the applicants within two months of receipt of a certified copy of this order. These OAs are disposed of accordingly. No costs.
9. A copy of this order be placed in each case file.
(Shekhar Agarwal) (G. George Parakcen) Member (A) Member (J) /Vinita/