Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Manraj Meena vs Union Of India on 1 April, 2013
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
Monday, this the 1st day of April, 2013
OA No. 563/2009
CORAM:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.RATHORE, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HONBLE MS. MEENAKSHI HOOJA, MEMBER (ADMINISTRATIVE)
Manraj Meena
s/o Shri Harkesh Meena,
aged about 21 years,
r/o Amawara, Tehsil Bamanwas,
District Sawai Madhopur,
working as Attendant, Regional Office,
Textile Committee, Jaipur
.. Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri C.B.Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India
through its Secretary,
Ministry of Textiles,
P.Balu Road, Prabhadevi Chowk,
Prabhadevi, Mumbai.
2. Secretary, Textile Committee,
Government of India,
Ministry of Textiles,
P.Balu Road, Prabhadevi Chowk,
Prabhadevi, Mumbai.
3. Regional Director, Regional Office,
Textile Committee, NSO-2 & SGR-1,
Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur
.. Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Tej Prakash Sharma)
ORDER (ORAL)
This is second round of litigation. Earlier, the applicant has filed OA No.246/2009 challenging the order dated 01.06.2009, by which service of the applicant was terminated. This Tribunal vide its order dated 10th July, 2009, having considered the fact that the posts of Attendant, Group-D stand already abolished, was of the view that no mandatory relief can be granted unless the order of abolition is challenged. However, liberty was granted to the applicant to challenge the order of abolition of posts by way of filing substantive OA. Therefore, the present OA has been filed claiming following reliefs:-
(a) By an appropriate order or direction the impugned orders dated 1.6.2009 Annex.A/1 and further also dated 1.6.2009 Annex.A/2 may kindly be declared as null and void and may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to continue the applicant as messenger and applicant be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits or in the alternative the applicant be sent to the surplus cell of DOPT for further posting etc.
(b) Any other relief which this Honble tribunal deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be awarded to the applicant.
2. It is not disputed by the respective parties that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.2375/2009 vide its order dated 10th November, 2009 observed as under:-
14. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, there is no merit in the Applicants claim to continue in their temporary service as Attendant. However, since services were terminated with immediate effect, and a sum equal to pay plus allowances for a month was not paid at the time of termination, they, as per the terms of CCS Temporary Service Rules, will be entitled to get one months salary and allowances in lieu of the notice period. In the normal course, the order dated 1.6.2009 would have been quashed but since the posts do not exist and only one term has been violated, the Respondents are directed to pay to the applicants one month salary and allowances as admissible to each one of them within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Principal Bench (supra) and referred to para 11 of the judgment wherein it was observed that the applicants before the Principal Bench have not assailed the abolition of posts but have only challenged the termination order dated 1.6.2009.
4. Taking advantage of the liberty extended to the applicant in the earlier OA No.246/2009, besides challenging the termination order the applicant also challenged the order dated 1.6.2009 (Ann.A/2) regarding abolition of posts and submitted that the reasoning given by the respondents in the termination order dated 1.6.2009 is self contradictory and it is a glaring example of non-application of mind by respondent No.2 in view of Annex.A/1 read with Annex. A/8. Further submits that there can be no automatic abolition of posts and the procedure of abolition has to undergo the approval of the DoPT, which in the present case, has not been done. It is also stated that abolition of posts, though discretion of the employer, has to be in accordance with the requirement of the job and in accordance with the persons already working on the said posts.
5. The reasoning given by the learned counsel for the applicant has strongly been controverted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. It is stated on behalf of the respondents that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench has considered all the aspects, which have been raised in this OA. Further, the order dated 1.6.2009 has been passed in pursuance to the decision taken in the meeting of the Screening Committee held on 16.12.2008 and accordingly vide order dated 16.3.2009 it was informed that the post of Attendant has been abolished. Vide Ann.I of the minutes the break-up of the posts has been given, which have been abolished. Since the applicant was appointed on non-sanctioned and non approved post which was later abolished due to decision taken by the Screening Committee, the services of the applicant were terminated and the applicant has no indefeasible right on the post as his appointment was against non-sanctioned and non-approved post.
6. We have heard the rival submissions of the respective parties and carefully gone through the earlier order passed by this Tribunal in OA No.246/2009 and the judgment rendered by the CAT-Principal Bench in OA 2375/2009 on 10th November, 2009 and also carefully perused the material available on record.
7. The applicant was appointed as Attendant vide office order dated 14th November, 2007 at Jaipur Regional Office of the Textiles Committee, Jaipur on a consolidated payment of Rs. 5000/- per month and the said appointment was on certain terms and conditions. As per clause-2(2), it is stipulated that the appointment is liable to be terminated at any time without any notice period and without assigning any reason during the contract period by the competent authority. It was also made clear that the appointment order comes with immediate effect and is valid till 14.11.2008 only. Further vide order dated 22 February, 2008 (Ann.A/5), the applicant was appointed as Attendant in the Regional Office of the Textiles Committee at Jaipur on an initial pay of Rs. 2550/- per month in the scale of pay of Rs. 2550-55-3200 w.e.f. 22nd February, 2008 that too on certain terms and conditions. It is not disputed that the Screening Committee has suggested to abolish 26 Group-D posts in various offices/organization of Ministry of Textiles and in view of the policy decision taken by the Government of India to reduce staff strength, the Central Government has formulated Annual Direct Recruitment Plan (ADRP) in the year 2001 and accordingly no direct recruitment can be made unless it has been cleared by the concerned Screening Committee and approval conveyed by the Government. The applicant and six other persons were appointed in the service as Attendant during the year 2008 without awaiting for the clearance of the Screening Committee and approval of Ministry of Textile. Since all the 7 appointments were dehors the rules/policy and were void-ab-initio, therefore, services of the applicant alongwith six other Attendants were terminated with immediate effect.
8. We have carefully scanned the judgment dated 10th November, 2009 rendered by the CAT-Principal Bench. The Principal Bench observed that the termination order is validly passed since the posts did not exist and their continuance ab initio was invalid and according to the Principal Bench, respondent No.2 was well within his powers to terminate the applicants consequent upon abolition of posts. The respondents have made payment of one months salary in lieu of notice period, keeping in view the order passed by the CAT-Principal Bench. It is informed by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties that similar OAs filed by similarly situated persons have also been dismissed.
9. Having considered the rival submissions of the respective parties, we are of the view that the respondents are competent to abolish the posts after recommendations of the Screening Committee and we are not convinced with the submissions made on behalf of the applicant that due procedure has not been followed while abolishing the post in question. On perusal of the documents filed alongwith the reply, it reveals that the respondents have formulated the Screening Committee and the Screening Committee in its meeting held on 16th December, 2008 recommended to abolish the posts in question and the respondents have acted accordingly. Since the respondents have followed the procedure and after following the due process of law passed the impugned termination order dated 1.6.2009, therefore, the impugned orders do not require any interference by this Tribunal.
10. Consequently, the OA being bereft of merit fails and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
(MEENAKSHI HOOJA) (JUSTICE K.S.RATHORE) Admv. Member Judl. Membver R/