Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri O.P. Bhatt vs Union Of India & Others Through on 8 December, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA 846/2008 New Delhi this the 8th day of December, 2010. Honble Mr. Justice V.K.Bali, Chairman Honble Mr. L.K.Joshi, Vice Chairman (A) Shri O.P. Bhatt, S/o Late Shri R.P. Bhatt, Research Officer, Ministry of Environment and Forest, FRE, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Applicant (Through Mr. S.K. Sinha, Advocate) VERSUS 1. Union of India & Others through: The Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi 2. Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances And Pensions, North Block, New Delhi 3. Indian Council of Forestry Research And Education through its Director General, Post Office, New Forest Dehra Dun (Uttarakhand) Respondents (Through Mr. Rajesh Katyal, Advocate) O R D E R Mr. L.K.Joshi, Vice Chairman (A) :
The Applicant is aggrieved by order dated 01.10.2007 of the first Respondent, Department of Personnel and Training (DOP&T), whereby the list of 22 employees of the Indian Council for Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE), the third Respondent, including the Applicant, has been accepted by the former. The Applicants prayer in the OA is to keep the order dated 01.10.2007 in abeyance till the Applicant is given promotion to the post of Scientist SC with effect from 19.11.1996 and thereafter consequential promotion under the Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) to Scientist SD and SE as also the benefit of upgrading under the Assured Career Progression Scheme with effect from 10.05.2003.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details the facts are that the Applicant is an employee of the ICFRE, which till the year 1990 was a department of the Government. It was converted into an autonomous organisation with effect from 01.06.1991 by the notification dated 30.05.1991 of the first Respondent, Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOE&F). It was registered as a society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. By an order dated 13.12.1991 the employees of the erstwhile ICFRE were placed on compulsory deputation with the Society with the option to get absorbed or be declared surplus. While the majority of the employees opted for absorption, about 800 employees did not give any option. These employees were declared surplus to be redeployed in other Government organisations, whereupon employees' union and nine other employees approached this Tribunal through OA number 1372 of 2001 with the prayer to quash the order declaring them surplus. The OA was dismissed by order dated 03.01.2003. The applicant therein then approached the Honourable Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (C) 1178 of 2003. The learned counsel for the respondents in the Writ Petition made a statement before the Honourable Delhi High Court that the Central Government was willing to absorb all the petitioners and other employees if they give their option within 30 days. He also stated that the absorption would be prospective. The High Court gave to the employees the liberty to file fresh proceedings if their grievance still persisted. The SLP filed by the employees before the Honourable Supreme Court was dismissed. Some of the employees who opted for absorption in the ICFRE after the above judgement of the Honourable Delhi High Court were absorbed by the resolution dated 02.04.2007, wherein it was mentioned, inter alia, that the said employees would be considered to have been absorbed in the Society with effect from 09.09.2006. It was also mentioned that their seniority would be determined in accordance with their date of absorption. As a consequence of this order a seniority list dated 18.04.2007 was issued in which the employees who were absorbed by the resolution dated 02.04.2007 were placed below the employees who had been absorbed earlier. Aggrieved by this, the employees approached this Tribunal in OA number 2171 of 2007. The applicants in the said OA contended that the Society was bound to take into account the service rendered by the them in the Society before their absorption for the purpose of seniority. Their contention was that the classification of the employees between those who had opted for absorption prior to 2006 and those who opted after 2006 was uncalled for. The respondents, however, contended that it had been made clear in the statement made by the counsel before the High Court that the absorption would be prospective. The Tribunal allowed the OA by judgement dated 31.03.2008. The judgement of the Tribunal was challenged before the High Court in Writ Petition (C) number 3090 of 2008. The High Court framed the following three issues for decision:
24. In view of the contentions advanced by the parties and the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal, following three questions arise for determination in the present petitions:-
i) Whether the decision of Supreme Court in Attar Singhs case (supra) has been correctly applied by the Tribunal in the present case?
Whether the classification made between the employees (including the respondents) who had opted for permanent absorption in the society in terms of the order dated 24.07.2006 passed by this court in W.P. ) No.1178/2003 and the employees who had opted for the same in terms of the resolution dated 21.05.1998 issued by Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India by the society is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India?
Whether the respondents had accepted the condition that the period spent by them in the society prior to their deputation shall not be taken into consideration for the purposes of fixation of their seniority? The High Court held that (a) the Tribunal was not justified in applying the ratio in the judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court in Attar Singh Kaushik V. Transport Department, (2008) 1 SCC 440; (b) the respondents were well justified in classifying the aforementioned two sets of employees for the purposes of determining the date of their absorption in the Society; and (c) the Government was justified in deciding that their absorption would take place from the prospective date. The judgement of the Tribunal in OA number 2171 of 2007 was set aside. While the Writ Petition in OA number 2171 of 2007 was pending before the Honourable Delhi High Court, another OA number 358 of 2008 was filed for the same cause of action. The Tribunal in its judgement dated 31.10.2008 observed thus in paragraph 22 of the judgement:
22. The applicants have asked for the same reliefs as had been asked for by the applicants in OA No.2171/2007. The only difference in the prayers is that in the present OA, it is also prayed that the applicants be not re-deployed till such time they are promoted, for variety of reasons, like being treated as fresh employees etc., as fully enumerated above. The other difference which may not be material is that whereas, the applicants in OA No.2171/2007 had given their option to remain in ICFRE Society and had been even absorbed, the applicants herein have not given their option. The same may not make any difference in the result of the case, inasmuch as, till such time options were open to the applicants, they ought not to have been overlooked by their juniors, if one is to follow the decision recorded by this Tribunal in OA No.2171/2007. The orders of this Tribunal in OA No.2171/2007 have since been challenged before the Delhi High Court in WP (C) No.3090/2008, and the operation of the judgment passed by the Tribunal impugned in the said writ petition has since been stayed. Learned counsel representing the applicants is conscious of this fact and has yet sought disposal of this OA. One way of looking at the things could be to adjourn this matter sine die, awaiting the decision of the High Court in WP (C) No.3090/2008. However, as the counsel for parties have required us to decide the matter, we would only say that the decision of the High Court that may be ultimately taken in the matter of promotion of those who have been absorbed would be final. There is no need for us to reconsider the issue in view of the same very issue being sub judice before the Honble High Court. Since the parties have sought decision and the fact is that the operation of the judgment passed by this Tribunal has been stayed by the Honble High Court, the only direction besides stating that the decision rendered by the High court would be binding upon the parties, would be that if ultimately the writ filed before the High Court is dismissed, the applicant who are to be redeployed, would be at liberty to seek adjustments on the posts against which they may be redeployed in consequence of the promotions that may be given to them in ICFRE over and above their juniors. The case of the applicants for seniority and promotion would be considered only up to the date of option from them to continue in the service of ICFRE Society, and if by that date, persons junior to them were promoted. We make it clear that if any one junior to the applicants might have been promoted after the last date of opting by the applicants to remain in ICFRE Society, surely, the applicants would have no case for seeking seniority and promotion.
3. The instant OA has also been filed for similar reliefs, which had been prayed for in the OAs number 2171 of 2007 and 358 of 2008.
4. The learned counsel for the Applicant has placed reliance on the judgement in OA number 358 of 2008 adverted to above. It was evident that the learned counsel was not aware of the judgement of the Honourable Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (C) 3090 of 2008, which was decided on 10.09.2010, by which the judgement of this Tribunal in OA number 2171 of 2007 was set aside. In view of this there would be no force in the reliance of the Applicant on the judgement dated 31.10.2008 in OA number 358 of 2008. Since the issues involved in the instant OA have already been decided by the Honourable Delhi High Court against the Applicants, this OA also has to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. No costs.
( L.K.Joshi ) ( V.K.Bali ) Vice Chairman (A) Chairman /dkm/