Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Jagdish Chandra Pant vs D/O Post on 24 March, 2022
Open Court
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD.
(This the 24 day of March, 2022)
Original Application No.1066/2019
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)
Hon'ble Ms. Pratima K Gupta, Member (J)
1. Jagdish Chandra Pant,(Male), 47 years, S/o Late B D Pant, Presently posted
as Postman at H.P.O. Ranikhet, District Almora.
. . .Applicant
By Advocates : Shri N K Papnoi
Shri Devesh Upreti
Shri Jitendra Kumar
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Director General, Department of Posts,(Personnel
Division), Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110001.
2. Director General, Department of Posts,(Personnel Division), Dak Bhawan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110001.
3. The Chief Postmaster General, Uttarakhand Circle, Dehradun, District
Dehradun,
4. Assistant Director (Recruitment), Uttarakhand Circle, Dehradun, District
Dehradun.
5. Superintendent of Post Offices, Almora Division, District Almora.
. . .Respondents
By Advocate: Shri T C Agarwal
ORDER
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A) We have joined this Division Bench online through video conferencing. Page 1 of 6
2. Shri Devesh Upreti, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri T C Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents are present.
3. The applicant is aggrieved that his claim for appointment as a Postman with effect from 07.03.2001 has been rejected by the respondents. To this effect, by virtue of the present Original Application, he seeks the following relief:-
"...
(i) Quash the order dated 24.04.2019, passed by the respondent no. 3 issued vide Letter No. LC/6-62/2019.
(ii) Issue necessary order or directions by commanding the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the applicant regarding the appointment on the post of postman in the compliance of order dated 07.03.2001, passed by this Tribunal from 07.03.2001.
(iii) Issue necessary order or direction directing the respondents to comply with the order dated 07.03.2001, so that the applicant may be entitled to get the benefit of promotion, seniority and pension and other consequential benefits, which he to get if the final order of the Central Administrative Tribunal had been complied with by the respondents.
(iv) Issue any other necessary order of direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(v) Award the cost of the application to the applicant.
4. The brief facts of the case are that in accordance with a scheme of the Department of Posts, the applicant who was working as a stamp vendor appeared in the examination for selection to the post of Postman against what is called 'outsider' quota in the examination conducted on 20.12.1998 and the applicant was successful in the said examination, accordingly, he was deputed for training before he could be formally appointed. However, at this stage it was discovered that there was an Page 2 of 6 apparent mistake in calculating the number of vacancies in 'outsider' quota, the recalculation led to downsizing/reduction in the number of vacancies and the applicant was at this stage ousted from the selection. The applicant challenged his removal just one day after he was recruited for training by filing an Original Application before this very Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal vide O.A. No. 1525/1999. This O.A. was disposed of on 07.03.2001 with the observations/directions that the applicant shall be deemed to have successfully qualified in the test and appointed as Postman against an existing post, if any or against the future vacancies. The Department chose to assail this order in the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand by way of WP No. 633/2001(M/S) which was dismissed on 24.03.2006. Consequent to this dismissal, the respondents appointed the applicant to the post of Postman with effect from 28.09.2006.
5. Shri Devesh Upreti, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argues that the claim of the applicant stands established unequivocally on 07.03.2001 when the Tribunal had disposed of the O.A. No. 1525/1999 with a specific direction that the applicant be appointed against an existing vacancy and if such vacancy is not available against a future vacancy. Learned counsel submits that he has made a specific averment in the Original Application that a vacancy did exist on that particular date and the applicant could have been suitably appointed against such a vacancy. He also draws attention to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents highlighting that this averment has not been denied or contested by the respondents.
6. Learned counsel further argues that even though the respondents were within their legal right to assail the order of the Hon'ble High Court, it is important to note that the High Court had not provided the respondents any interim protection.
Therefore, even though the matter was pending in the Hon'ble High Court for the 4-5 years, the order of Central Administrative Tribunal was operative in the absence of any stay in favour of the respondents. Therefore, the learned counsel argues that the Page 3 of 6 appointment of the applicant should be deemed to be with effect from 07.03.2001 along with all the consequential benefits which shall flow from the same. He informs that the applicant had made a comprehensive representation airing his grievance and demanding his bona fide claim before the competent authority of the respondents in the year 2011. However, the same was rejected. He filed another representation in the year 2018 which has been again rejected vide the impugned order.
7. Learned counsel continues his argument by reiterating that since the fact that a vacancy existing on the relevant date which is 07.03.2001 has not been controverted by the respondents at any stage, there is no option except granting appointment to the applicant with effect from this date along with all consequential benefits.
08. Shri T C Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents raises a strong preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present O.A. submitting that it is hopelessly time barred. Shri Agarwal points out that the appointment was made to the applicant in the year 2006 and he is seeking the same with effect from the year 2001 and it is in the year 2019 that he has filed this present Original Application. Shri Agarwal mentions that even though the applicant had made representation before the appropriate authority the same was done in the year 2011, a good five years after appointment, and after 2011 he chose to make a fresh representation in the year 2018. There is no cogent reason adduced in the O.A. or in any of the documents to justify this further delay of seven years and as to what was the reason which prevented the applicant from pressing his claim.
09. Learned counsel further argues that the right of the applicant accrues only with effect from the date when the matter was finally settled legally and in this case the rightful claim arises from the date of the order of the High Court. Accepting the claim of the applicant from the date of the order of the Tribunal would amount to Page 4 of 6 denying the respondents their legal right to approach the Hon'ble High Court to assail the order of the Tribunal.
10. Shri T C Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents further mentions that it is wrong to interpret the order of the Tribunal in a manner in which the learned counsel for the applicant is doing. The order said either against the existing vacancy or against the future vacancy and in this case, the vacancy against which the applicant was appointed could be deemed to be a future vacancy with respect to the date of the order of the Tribunal, and would be deemed to be an existing vacancy with respect to the date of the order of the Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, respondents have complied with the order in letter and spirit.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also carefully examined the documents on record. The facts of the matter are not disputed.
12. The finality is attached to the order of the Tribunal which was passed on 07.03.2001. Its finality further gets established by the fact that the Writ Petition by which this order was assailed got dismissed. Moreover, vide an interim order dated 15.12.1999 which is placed at Page No. 34 of the Original Application there was a direction that one post is to be kept vacant till the disposal of the Original Application of the applicant. This itself establishes that if there was a vacant post as it had been specifically kept vacant for the applicant in the event of his being successful in the Original Application which he ultimately did. Moreover, the impugned order does not touch upon the facts with respect to the existence of vacancy as on the date of the order of the Tribunal, a fact on which the O.A. of the applicant hinges. Even the reply of the respondents is silent on this issue. Since there is no dispute with respect to the facts, we are of the categorical view that the applicant is entitled to get the benefit of the spirit of the order passed by the Tribunal in Original Application No. 1525/1999 on 07.03.2001 which meant that he is to be appointed against a post which was lying vacant on that date and as discussed earlier Page 5 of 6 the documents on record clearly point out that the post was lying vacant on the relevant date. So, this Original Application is allowed with a specific direction to the respondents to suitably amend the appointment of the applicant indicating his date of appointment as 07.03.2001. However, the applicant will be entitled only to notional benefits with effect from that date.
13. With the aforesaid directions, this O.A. is disposed off.
14. All the associated M.A.s also stand disposed of, accordingly.
15. No order as to costs.
(Ms Pratima K Gupta) (Tarun Shridhar)
Member-J Member-A
/PR/
Page 6 of 6