Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Central Administrative Tribunal And ... on 9 December, 2013
Bench: Surya Kant, Surinder Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.26974 of 2013
Date of Decision: December 09, 2013
Union of India and others .....Petitioners
versus
Central Administrative Tribunal and others .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA.
Present : Mr.P.C.Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr.Rohiteshwar Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
---
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
Notice of motion.
Mr.Rohiteshwar Singh, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.
Copy of the writ petition be supplied to learned counsel for respondent No.2.
In view of the nature of order which we propose to pass, there is no necessity to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage.
Union of India and its authorities in the Military Engineering Service, impugn the order dated 08.08.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, whereby the transfer-cum-posting order dated 29.05.2013 posting respondent No.2 in the office of Chief Construction Engineer (for short 'CCE') (Army) at Missamari as SO-1 has been set-aside on the ground that as per the petitioners' own policy/circular dated 17.11.2003 read with subsequent notifications dated 30.07.2012 etc., respondent No.2 was entitled to be posted in the rank and status of Director in the CCE (Army) as his above-stated posting was to the field area i.e., disturbed area.
Satyawan 2014.01.08 17:06 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 26974 of 2013 2 The short question that arose for consideration of the Tribunal was whether the posting of respondent No.2 at the project location of CCE (Army) at Missamari is in the 'peace area' or 'field area' i.e. 'disturbed area' and was it in a rank lower than his present posting?
Firstly, we may examine whether respondent No.2 has been transferred to a post lower in rank than his present posting. It was the conceded position before the Tribunal that in the event of posting of respondent No. 2 in disturbed /Counter Insurgency area, he was required to be posted in the rank of Director while in 'peace area', he could be transferred and posted in the rank of Superintending Engineer. Vide letter dated 17.11.2003 (Annexure A-3) issued by Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi, the post of Civilian Officers in Military Engineer Services were re- designated as follows :-
Sr. Existing posts of Gp. 'A' Civilian Revised Designation No. Engineer Officers and their scale Executive Staff Appointments of pay Appointment
1. Superintending Engineer CWE Director (Rs. 14300-18300) Vide order dated 29.05.2013 respondent No. 2 was posted to CCE (Army) No. -02 Missamari as SO-1.
The plea of respondent No.2 is that the post of SO-1 is equivalent to the post of Lt. Colonel i.e. Superintending Engineer. The Tribunal has relied upon number of documents while observing that the post of SO-1 is equivalent to the post of Lt. Colonel. The observation of the Tribunal based on documents produced on file are as follows :-
"(b) Another letter is dated 27.1.2011 (Annexure R-2) of respondent no. 1 relating to "Strengthening of MES and in-principle approval for Go-ahead sanction for Satyawan infrastructure development in Eastern Command"
2014.01.08 17:06 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 26974 of 2013 3 Establishment of 3 x CCEs for infrastructure development in Eastern Command has been sanctioned. At Sr. No. 2 post of Director (Col/Equivalent) has been mentioned. Below that at Sr. No. 3 is Staff Officer-I/II.
(c) Another letter is dated 30.7.2012 (A-14) which is on Court Case No. CMWP NO. 60610/2011 it was stated that Col/SE/Director should be treated as Senior PM.
In Army Order No. A/85 regarding "Designation of Appointments at the Army Headquarters". The rank of Col. has been designated as Director (Dir). In the Engineers-in-Chief's Branch Col. has been shown as Director Personnel (MES), Lt. Col. has been shown as SO (I). In the Engineers in -Chief Branch in respect of Additional Director General of Engineer (Personnel) Co. has been shown as Director Personnel (Prs) and Lt. Col., has been shown as Director Pers (MES). In the Additional Directorate General of Engineering (Personnel) Col., has been shown as Director Pers (MES) and Ld. Col. has been shown as SO I Engrs (Pers). In Work-study Directorate (Engrs) (WS Dte Engrs) Col. has been shown as Dir WS (Engr) and Lt. Col., as SO 1 WS (Engrs). In Additional Directorate General if Engrs. Stores and Plant, Col., has been shown as Dir-Esp and Lt. Col. as SI 1 (ESP 1, ESP 2) in Deputy Directorate General Works (P&C), Lt., Col. has been shown as SO 1 Wks (P&C1, P&C2).
(d) In letter dated 21.12.2004 (Annexure A-16) regarding (restructuring) of the officers cadre of the Satyawan 2014.01.08 17:06 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 26974 of 2013 4 Army issued by respondent no. 1 the existing appointment a s SO 1 in Engineers in Chief's Branch/CE-4 Corps at Sr. No. 830. SO II has been given the re-assigned appointment of SO 1 in Engineer-in-Chief's Branch/Comd HQ/CE Zone/SWAC/CE Project (BRO)/HQ DGHR (BRO)/HQ DGAR at Sr. No. 839.
(e) In order dated 26.10.2010 (Annexure A-17) of the Military Secretary's Branch (MS-12A), Lt. Col. has been posted as SO(I).
(f) In letter dated 26.11.2008 of respondent no. 1 Director (SE) has been shown at Sr. No. 4 of the civilian cadre." (emphasized by us) The rank of SO-1 has been made equivalent to Lt. Colonel in the Engineer-in-Chief Branch and officer in the rank of Lt. Colonel have been posted as SO-1 vide posting orders dated 26.04.2010 (Annexure A-17) and 31.3.2010. The Ministry of Defence vide memo dated 26.11.2008 (Annexure A-18) has equalised the post of SO-1 with that of Col. (TS)/ Lt. Col. and the post of Additional Chief Engineer with the post of Col.
In view of the documents discussed above, there appears to be no fault with the findings returned by the Tribunal that the post of SO-1 to which respondent No.2 has been transferred is lower in rank than his present posting.
It has been argued that respondent No.2 could not be posted in field area without his consent as per SRO No. 92 of 1957 Satyawan 2014.01.08 17:06 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 26974 of 2013 5 (Annexure A-3) referred to by the Tribunal.
It is then argued on behalf of the petitioners that Missamari is not a 'field area'. Allahabad High Court considered this very question in A. Arul Dhas vs. Union of India and others (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 60610 of 2011) and held that Missamari which falls under the 'Counter Insurgency Area' is a field area, where a person working on the post of Superintending Engineer cannot be transferred in violation of the provisions of SRO No. 92.
During the course of hearing, it is pointed out by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the decision of Allahabad High Court in A.Arul Dhas's case (supra) has attained finality. It is thus obvious that the petitioners have accepted the cited decision that Missamari is a 'field area'. In that event, respondent No.2 could not be posted in that area in the rank of SO-1. Since the posting order admittedly is in lower rank, the interference made by the Tribunal is fully justified and deserves to be upheld.
For the reasons afore-stated, we do not find any merit in this petition.
Dismissed.
However, the order passed by the Tribunal shall not preclude the petitioners from transferring/posting respondent No.2 in accordance with their policy circular contained in SRO 92 of 1957 read with subsequent policy decisions.
[SURYA KANT]
JUDGE
December 09, 2013 [SURINDER GUPTA]
Mohinder/ Satyawan JUDGE
Satyawan
2014.01.08 17:06
"I attested to the accuracy and
integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh