Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Sh. H.S. Gill Son Of Late Sh. Hari Singh ... vs Union Of India Through The Director ... on 28 April, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH .....................
Dated: 28th April, 2010 O.A.NO.623/CH/2008 CORAM: Hon'ble Mrs. Shyama Dogra, Member (J). Hon'ble Mr. Khushiram, Member (A).
Sh. H.S. Gill son of late Sh. Hari Singh Gill, aged about 55 years, working as Security Officer, Central Sientific Instruments Organization, Sector-30-C, Chandigarh-160030.
Applicant Versus
1. Union of India through the Director General, C.S.I.R. Anusandhan Bhawan, 2, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001.
2. Director, Central Scientific Instruments Organization, Sector-30-C, Chandigarh-160030.
3. Administrative Officer, Central Scientific Instruments Organization, Sector-30-C, Chandigarh-160030.
4. Shri Lakhpat Rai, Security Officer, Central Scientific Instruments Organization, Sector-30-C, Chandigarh-160030.
................Respondents Present: Mr. V.K. Sharma, counsel for the applicant. Mr. I.S. Sidhu, counsel for the Respondents No.1-3. MR. Sunder Singh, counsel for Respondent No.4.
O R D E R By Hon'ble Mr. Khushiram, Member (A):-
The applicant is posted as regular security officer with respondents and earlier he was transferred from Chandigarh to CSIO, Jaipur, where no post of regular Security Officer existed. The applicant filed O.A. No.518/CH/07 which was decided by this Tribunal on 22.2.2008 quashing the impugned order of transfer as the same was made to a place where no regular post of Security Officer existed thereafter applicant joined back at Chandigarh on 25.4.2008. By filing this O.A., applicant has raised questions about the promotion of private respondent No.4 Shri Lakhpat Rai as security officer on 13.5.2008 vide order dated 26.5.2008 (Annexure A-2), by which his joining was confirmed w.e.f.13.5.2008. Applicant has challenged the promotion of private respondent No.4 on the basis that there was no second post of Security Officer and the lone post sanctioned for the organization is occupied by the applicant. By seeking the information under RTI regarding the holding of DPC and instructions thereto, the applicant has alleged that promotion of Sh. Lakhpat Rai has been made by the respondents in violation of established/prescribed Rules and procedure as they were prejudiced against him. He has also stated that private respondent has been promoted from Group C to Group B and designated as Security Officer by infringing CSIR Recruitment Rules. He has alleged that private respondent Sh. Lakhpat Rai was penalized in a theft case and in spite of that fact he has been promoted to a non-sanctioned post of Security Officer with a view to take away the work of Security Officer from the applicant. The applicant has also stated that Director, CSIO has no authority to create or sanction any additional post of Security Officer at CSIO. Even after promotion of the private respondent No4 to the post of Security Officer charge of security was kept with one Sh. Mr. Vohra under the supervision of Sh. Om Prakash, Section Officer, till 26.5.2008 and in spite of his promotion he continued to work under Sh. Vohra, a Technician till 26.5.2008. He has also stated that promotion of Sh. Lakhpat Rai and taking away work of Security Officer from the applicant and assignment of the same to respondent N.4 is unfair, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and in violation of rules, therefore, he has filed this O.A. to seek mainly following reliefs:
1. Quash the office Order No.7 of 2008 dated 13.5.2008 (Annexure 1) and order dated 24.5.2008 (Annexure A-2).
2. Quash the decision as contained in Minutes of meeting dated 5.6.2008 (Annexure A-9).
Respondents have contested the claim of the applicant by filing written statement and stated that the applicant is still continuing in the Organization as Security Officer and present O.A. filed by the applicant is more akin to a public interest litigation which is not maintainable before the Tribunal. It is also stated that the applicant was appointed in service in CSIR Dhanbad on 4.12.1989 as Senior Security Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 and on completion of 11 years of service in the grade as Senior Security Assistant; he was promoted in the pay-scale of Rs.6500-10500/- with designation as Security Officer w.e.f. 04.12.2000 at CFRI, Dhanbad. Applicant was transferred from CFRI, Dhanbad to CSIO Chandigarh on 28.6.2002 on his request vide order dated 19.6.2002 (Annexure R-1) and joined duty at CSIO, Chandigarh on 01.7.2002 in the same capacity vide order dated 02.7.2002 (Annexure R-2). On his joining he was assigned work of security as well as supervision work of cleaning of CSIO Campus. Admittedly he was transferred to Jaipur and back to CSIO Chandigarh on the order of CAT rendered on22.2.2008 in O.A. 518/CH/2007. Obviously he was assigned duties of Security of particular area vide order dated 06.6.2008 and 29.7.2008 (Annexure R-3 and R-4) and Lone work of security has also been given to him. The applicant had earlier filed a Contempt Petition No.54 of 2008 but did not press the same and then the same was closed by this Honble Tribunal. During the year 2003, some Computers and one Aqua Guard were reported to have been stolen from Indo Swiss Training Centre of CSIO, Chandigarh, where the applicant was working as Security Officer and private respondent No.4 as Senior Security Assistant with the applicant. Loss of the articles was ordered to be recovered from security staff on duty including the applicant as the security staff was found to be responsible for the theft and as a penalty recovery of the loss on account of theft material was ordered. Except the applicant all others have deposited their share of the loss in-compliance with the orders of the penalty and the recovery of the same is also being made from the salary of the applicant in monthly installments. After respondent No.4 who has deposited contributory amount for the loss, apportioned as his share, only then on completion of 11 years of residency period in lower grade as Senior Security Assistant he was promoted as Security Officer on recommendations of the DPC and approved by the competent authority. As per annexure R-5, CSIO, vide letter dated 16.10.2003, the promotion of staff holding isolated posts upto the scale of 6500-10,500/- may be considered by DPC on the basis of Section Seniority without the element of interview and approval of the DG, CSIR. The promotion of respondent No.4 has been made in-accordance with the instruction of CSIR vide office order No.6 dated 12.11.1981 and CSIR letter No.17 dated 30.1.2008 (Annexure R-7) and dated 16.10.2003 (Annexure R-5), on completion of 11 years of service in the existing grade w.e.f.12.5.2008. Respondents have sated that the promotion of the respondent No.4 to the post of Security Officer against non- existing post is vehemently denied as he carried his own post of Sr. Security Assistant (Grade Rs.5500-9000) to the next higher grade i.e. Security Officer on completion of 11 years of residency period on post of Security Assistant and after he has deposited an amount apportioned to him as penalty amounting to Rs.8190/-. The applicant has been apportioned a sum of Rs.22,223/- which is being recovered from his salary in monthly installments. While holding DPC the vigilance clearance certificate and relevant record was placed before the DPC for perusal. It is also stated that impugned order annexure A-1 and A-2 has been issued in-accordance with the Rules and order annexure A-9 (in fact annexure A-11) is an official communication and not an order has not affected the applicant adversely as he is holding the post Security Officer.
We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant who tried to make out a case in favour of the applicant by reiterating the point made in this O.A. and argued that while the post of Security Officer is kept by the applicant, respondent No.4 could not have been promoted to the same as neither the post was created nor the respondents have power to do so. However, learned counsel failed to make out a case in favour of the applicant as applicant has neither been reduced in rank nor he has been affected adversely in any way by promotion of respondent no.4. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand argued that the promotion of the respondent no.4 after completion of 11 years of residency period as senior security assistant has been made in accordance with the existing instructions and on the recommendations of the DPC and the promotion of respondent no.4 has not affected the applicant in any way adversely as the applicant is still Security Officer and discharging the functions assigned to him. Therefore, the order of co-warranto sought to be issued by the applicant cannot be issued.
We have considered the arguments made by the applicant and perused the record placed before us. After having gone through the record and hearing learned counsel for both the parties, we are of the considered view that respondent No.4 has been promoted from the post of Senior Security Assistant to the post of Security Officer after completion of 11 years of requisite residency period and it has not affected the status of the applicant, nor has it affected him in any way adversely. Applicant himself was promoted to the post of Security Officer while posted in Jharkahand on completion of 11 years of residency as Senior Security Assistant. His seniority has also been not adversely affected. Therefore, he cannot raise such objections on the promotion of respondent no.4. The O.A. turns out of bereft of merits and therefore is dismissed. However, applicant is always at liberty to seek legal redressal at relevant point of time if some adverse orders are passed against him due to promotion of private respondent. No costs.
(KHUSHIRAM) (SHYAMA DOGRA) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) Place: Chandigarh. Dated: 28.4.2010 KR* 8 7 O.A. No. 623/CH/2008