Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shatanjiva Hooja vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation on 4 December, 2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 339/2013
Reserved On: 27.11.2018
Pronounced on: 04.12.2018
HON'BLE MR. V. AJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. A.K. BISHNOI, MEMBER (A)
Shatanjiva Hooja
S/o Late Shri Surya Deva Hooja
R/o Flat No.9, Ahuja Farms, Near Trivoli
Gadens, Rajpura Road,
Chattarpur Extn.
New Delhi-110074. .. Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Sunil Kumar Jha)
Versus
1. Commissioner (North)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
4th Floor, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi.
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Anand Parbat, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
3. Accounts Officer (Pension)
Office of CA-cum-FA,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Pension Cell (HQ),
Town Hall,
Chandani Chowk, Delhi. .. Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Anupama Bansal)
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J) The applicant, who retired as Sanitary Inspector on 31.08.2002, filed the OA seeking consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Chief Sanitary Inspector, on par with one Shri Adarsh Kumar Oberoi.
2OA No.339/2013
2. The applicant earlier filed OA No. 1595/2009 seeking the same relief. The said OA was disposed of by this Tribunal on 28.08.2009, as under:-
"3. We find that in so far as the prayers of the applicant are concerned, the main prayer relates to consideration of promotion to the post of Chief Sanitary Inspector. Admittedly, Adarsh Kumar Oberoi was granted promotion after retirement by orders issued in 2003 effective from 2001. As such the respondents cannot object to consideration of the applicant's case also. The applicant is granted liberty to make a representation to the respondents within two weeks of the date of receipt of this order, seeking decision of the competent authority for treating the period spent abroad as duty, as has been decided in the case of Adarsh Kumar Oberoi, taking into consideration the orders passed by the Assistant Prosecutor, Vigilance treating this period as regularized for all intents and purposes. His case shall be considered for promotion accordingly. At the same time, the respondents are asked to communicate to the applicant, as they have communicated in the case of Adarsh Kumar Oberoi, the amount to be deposited under CPF within a stipulated period of time. Upon depositing the same, the case of the applicant would be considered for extension of pension to him. If the applicant is promoted he shall be extended consequential benefits including enhancement of the pension etc. due to him. It is ordered accordingly. This exercise shall be completed within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The OA is disposed of. No costs".
3. The applicant filed CP No.620/2010 in OA No.1595/2009, which was disposed of by an order dated 16.11.2010 recording the undertaking given by the respondents that they will comply with the orders in OA No.1595/2009.
4. CP No.422/2011 filed by the applicant was closed by order dated 27.04.2011, as under:-
"8. It is true that respondents have taken some time in passing the orders but they have tendered unconditional apology for the delay which is accepted. Now that they have 3 OA No.339/2013 passed order dated 25.04.2011, copy of which has been given to the counsel for the applicant, we cannot go into the correctness of this order. In view of above, CP is dropped. Notices are discharged. However, liberty is given to the applicant to challenge the order dated 25.04.2011 in case he is not satisfied with the same".
5. W.P. (C) No.4499/2012 filed by the applicant against the order dated 27.04.2011 in CP No.422/2011 was dismissed, as not pressed on 31.07.2012.
6. OA No.3734/2012 filed by the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a better OA on 07.11.2012. Thereafter, the applicant filed the instant OA.
7. Heard Shri Sunil Kumar Jha, the learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Anupama Bansal, the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the pleadings on record.
8. The applicant, who retired while working as Sanitary Inspector on 31.08.2002 is seeking promotion to the next higher post of Chief Sanitary Inspector by stating that one Shri Adarsh Kumar Oberoi was considered and promoted to the post of Chief Sanitary Inspector, even after his retirement. On the same analogy, he submits that he is also entitled for promotion to the post of Chief Sanitary Inspector, though he retired from service on 31.08.2002 itself. The applicant though vaguely submitted that he is senior to the said Shri Adarsh Kumar Oberoi, but failed to substantiate the said submission. Hence, it cannot be said that the applicant is entitled for post retirement promotion as Chief Sanitary Inspector 4 OA No.339/2013 as any of his juniors were promoted as such, i.e., after their retirement.
9. The remaining submission of the applicant is that since the said Shri Adarsh Kumar Oberoi was promoted even after his retirement, he is also entitled for the same benefit.
10. Ms. Anupama Bansal, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents categorically submitted that Shri Adarsh Kumar Oberoi was at Sl.No.114 and whereas the applicant was at Sl.No.238 in the seniority list of Sanitary Inspectors and by virtue of his seniority, the said Shri Adarsh Kumar Oberoi was within the zone of consideration at the relevant point of time and accordingly, he was promoted, whereas the applicant, in view of his lower place in the seniority, could not be considered for promotion.
11. In the circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the OA and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.
12. The duplicate Service Book of the applicant and the Service Book of Shri Adarsh Kumar Oberoi shall be returned to the counsel for the respondents.
(A.K. BISHNOI) (V. AJAY KUMAR)
Member (A) Member (J)
RKS