Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dev Dutt vs M/O Urban Development on 8 February, 2024
1
OA No.2073/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No.2073/2017
Order reserved on 02.02.2024
Order pronounced on 08.02.2024
Hon'ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K Gupta, Member(J)
Dev Dutt, Age 55 years Approx
Group A, S/o Late Bhagat Ram Sharma
7A-Gaushala Colony, Dharampura
Main Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043.
....Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Vinod Zutshi)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Urban Development (MOUD)
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011.
2. National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd.
(through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director)
NBCC Bhawan, Lodhi Road
New Delhi-110003.
3. General Manager (HRM)
NBCC Bhawan, Lodhi Road
New Delhi-110003.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Gudipati G Kashyap)
2
OA No.2073/2017
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A) The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:-
"(8.1) Quash the letter No.HRM/PMS/2013-14/2354 dated 19.06.2014 rejecting the applicant's claim for grant of Performance Related Promotion;
(8.2) Implement the recommendations dated 03.08.2015 of the Central Grievance committee duly approved by the CMD of the Respondent No.2, constituted for addressing the genuine grievances of the employees.
(8.3)Direct the respondents to grant the Performance Related Promotion to the Applicant from the date he joined the office of the Respondent No.2 after availing the Self renewal Leave Scheme 2008 for five years along with all the consequential benefits.
(8.4) Pass any such further order or direction as, in the facts and circumstances of the case, deemed fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents."
2. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the OA and argued by learned counsel for the applicant are:-
2.1 The applicant was working as Executive (HRM) with respondent No.2 i.e. National Building Construction Corporation Ltd.(NBCC for short). On 01.06.2008, the respondent announced the "NBCC Self Renewal Scheme, 2008", wherein the employee could avail upto five years' leave and on expiry of leave, rejoin the respondent's Corporation in the same grade. Impelled by his family circumstances, the applicant applied and was granted 3 OA No.2073/2017 leave under the aforementioned Scheme w.e.f.
01.10.2008 to 30.09.2013.
2.2 In the meantime, the Respondent Corporation on the basis of its performance was upgraded from Schedule 'B' to Schedule 'A' company. Attributing this upgradation to its employees' hard work, the respondent rewarded the employees, fulfilling certain conditions, by way of upgrading them to the next higher grade under the "Performance Related Promotion" (PRP for short) with effect from 05.03.2009.
2.3 The applicant being on leave at the relevant time, sent a representation dated 29.06.2009 to the respondents requesting for promotion to next higher post in terms of upgradation of the respondent-Corporation.
However, the same was rejected by the respondents vide letter dated 29.07.2009 stating as under:-
"Your attention is drawn to Clause 16.0 of "NBCC Self Renewal Leave Scheme, 2008" which reads as under:
"On termination/completion of leave and reverting back to the services of the company, pay of the employee shall be in the same grade in which she/he was at the time of proceeding on leave. However, in case that grade has been replaced as a revision of salary structure, pay will be fixed in the replaced scale at the stage corresponding to the stage in the previous scale."
It would thus be clear that, in the course of Self Renewal Leave, and employee shall not be promoted in any manner whatsoever."
4OA No.2073/2017 2.3 On expiry of five years' Self Renewal Leave, the applicant joined the office and again represented vide representation dated 17.12.2013 for grant of the PRP benefit as per the policy of respondent No.2 which was again rejected by the respondents vide letter dated 08.01.2014. The applicant sent further representations dated 16.06.2014 and 17.04.2015 which were also rejected by the respondents.
2.4 Thereafter, the applicant represented to the Central Grievance Committee requesting for sympathetic consideration of his case for grant of PRP vide representation dated 26.06.2016.
2.5 The applicant also filed an application under the RTI Act, 2005 to know about the action taken on his case for grant of the PRP benefit. He came to know that his case was duly recommended and approved by GM(HRM) and Member Secretary, of the Central Grievance Committee on 03.08.2015 (Annexure A/12).
5OA No.2073/2017 2.6 The applicant again sent a representation dated 24.10.2016 to the Chairman, NBCC, giving details of his case and stated as under:-
"Based on my application dated 17-04-2015, Central Grievance Committee (CGC) has reviewed my case in its meeting held on 29.06.2015. After due deliberations, CGC observed as under:
"Shri Dev Dutt, Executive (HRM) was on SRL w.e.f. 1.10.2008 to 30.09.2013 (5 years). Considering the provision available in circular dated 5.3.2009 indicated above at S. No. 1. As also taking the fact that the criteria fixed for PRP promotion has been met by Shri Dev Dutt as indicated at Sl. No.2 above. CGC recommends Shri Dev Dutt, Executive (HRM) can be given PRP Promotion the next higher post of Asstt Manager (HRM) and the benefits of PRP promotion in his case shall take effect from 3.10.2013 only (2.10.2013 being holiday for Gandhi Jayanthi) (i.e. after his joining back on duty on 1.10.2013) as according to Clause 18.0 of the SRL Scheme, 'the period spent on leave will not be counted for determining eligibility for promotion'. Accordingly, the matter stand disposed-off."
The CGC has recommended as above on 03.08.2015." 2.6 Learned counsel for the applicant argued that even though his case was duly recommended for grant of the aforesaid benefit under PRP, the respondents have not yet taken any action on his request. Hence, the present OA.
3. Vide order dated 26.09.2017, Mr. Hanu Bhaskar learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that no reply is required on behalf of the said respondent. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed their reply rebutting the averments made in the OA.
6OA No.2073/2017 3.1 The preliminary objection raised by the respondents is that there is a delay of about three years in filing the OA as the cause of action accrued on 19.06.2014 when the case of the applicant was rejected by the respondents. However, the applicant has filed the OA in the year 2017. No condonation of delay application has been filed by the applicant under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
3.2 It is stated in the counter affidavit that the recommendations of Central Grievance Committee (CGC for short), which duly recommended the case of the applicant for grant of PRP benefit, do not have a binding effect on the answering respondent's management and the respondents have rightly taken the decision in not granting the benefit to the applicant.
3.3 Moreover, in terms of clause No.16.0 of respondent- NBCC Self Renewal Leave Scheme, 2008, it is specified as under:-
"On termination/completion of leave and reverting back to the services of the company, pay of the employee shall be in the same grade in which she/he was at the time of proceeding on leave. However, in case that grade has been replaced as a review of salary structure, pay will be fixed in the replaced scale at the stage corresponding to the stage in the previous scale."7 OA No.2073/2017
Further, in terms of Clause No.18.0 of the aforesaid Scheme the following has been stated:-
"The period spent on leave will not be counted for determining eligibility for promotion. On return, the employee's seniority in his/her substantive grade/post will be determined taking into account the actual period of service in the substantive grade/post prior to proceeding on leave."
Therefore, the applicant had rightly been denied the aforesaid benefit under the PRP.
3.5 Further, in para No.18 of the reply it has been stated that the applicant is trying to portray that his representation has been recommended by the CMD of respondent No.2 authority and despite such recommendation his legitimate claim of upgradation is not given effect to. However, the fact is that the CMD never approved the recommendations of the Central Grievance Committee of respondent No.1 and only their recommendations were sought with the approval of CMD. This is evident from the fact that all the representations of the applicant were rejected time and again by passing a reasoned order. The applicant is trying to take shelter of an internal communication of the respondent authority for 8 OA No.2073/2017 his own benefit which, on the face of it, is false and liable to be ignored.
4. The applicant has also filed a rejoinder reiterating what has already been stated in the OA.
5. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
6. The issue involved is whether the applicant who had availed of the Scheme called "NBCC Self Renewal Leave Scheme, 2008" for five years i.e. from 01.10.2008 to 30.09.2013, can claim for "Performance Related Promotion (PRP)" w.e.f. 05.03.2009 or not. Admittedly, the said scheme had come into effect during the period when the applicant was on leave. As already pointed out in para 2.3 (supra) clause 16.0 of NBCC Self Renewal Leave Scheme, 2008 reads as under:-
"On termination/completion of leave and reverting back to the services of the company, pay of the employee shall be in the same grade in which she/he was at the time of proceeding on leave. However, in case that grade has been replaced as a review of salary structure, pay will be fixed in the replaced scale at the stage corresponding to the stage in the previous scale."
7. A bare perusal of the above leaves no room for doubt that on termination/completion of leave and reverting back 9 OA No.2073/2017 to the services of the company, the pay of the employee would be in the same grade in which she/he was at the time of proceeding on leave. The only exception mentioned therein is if that grade has been replaced by another grade as a revision of salary structure which is not true in the present case. Therefore, the applicant was very much aware of the aforementioned condition before he proceeded on leave. Obviously, once an employee avails the benefit under a particular scheme, she/he cannot dis-respect any of the conditions attached to that scheme. Inasmuch as the PRP scheme was implemented while the applicant was on five years leave from 01.10.2008 to 30.09.2013, he obviously cannot stake any claim for the same.
8. As far as the recommendations by Central Grievance Committee (CGC) is concerned, it has been clarified by the learned counsel for the respondents that the recommendations of CGC do not have a binding effect on the answering respondents' management and the respondents have rightly taken the decision in not granting the benefit to the applicant. He has further stated that the CMD never approved the recommendations of the CGC. 10 OA No.2073/2017 Therefore, the recommendations have no relevance in the matter.
9. In view of the above discussion, we find that the applicant was bound by the conditions attached to the NBCC Self Renewal Leave Scheme and has no locus standi to deny the same. Secondly, the respondents were well within their rights to deny the benefit of PRP because the applicant was not on duty at the time of implementation of the said scheme. Accordingly, we find that the OA is bereft of merit and the same is dismissed.
10. No order as to costs.
(Pratima K Gupta) (Anand Mathur)
Member (J) Member(A)
/vb/