Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri R.K.S. Gaur vs Mcd & Ors. Through on 7 February, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No. 2849/2009 New Delhi this the 7th day of February, 2011 Honble Shri M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) Shri R.K.S. Gaur, S/o Sh. K.S. Gaur, R/o House No.254/A, Tomar Colony, Street No.5, Burari, Delhi-84 -Applicant (By Advocate: Shri M.K. Bhardwaj) -V E R S U S- MCD & Ors. through: 1. The Commissioner, Municipal Commissioner of Delhi, Town Hall, Delh-06 2. The Addl. Commissioner, (Estt.), Municipal Commissioner of Delhi, Town Hall, Delh-06 3. The Director (Pers), CED, Municipal Commissioner of Delhi, Town Hall, Delh-06 4. Sh. TC Arora, serving as Addl. Dir (Remp) Department of Education, Nigam Bhavan, Kashmere Gate, Delhi -Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Piyush Gaur for Sh. Arun Bhardwaj) O R D E R (Oral)
Shri M.L. Chauhan:
The applicant has filed this OA thereby praying the following reliefs:-
(i) To quash and set aside the impugned order dated 11.8.2009 (A-1)
(ii) To direct the respondents to promote the applicant to the post of Addl. Director (PE) with effect from 1/8/2009 with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay.
(iii) To direct the respondents to grant promotion to the applicant to the post of Addl. Director in the same manner/analogy as given to the similarly placed persons namely Ms. Swatantar Bala etc. (next senior prior to applicant).
(iv) To allow the OA with exemplary cost.
(v) To pass such other and further orders which their lordships of this Honble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case.
2. As can be seen from the prayer clause, the main grievance of the applicant is regarding re-employment of Shri T.C. Arora to the post of Additional Director (PE) for a period of six months w.e.f. 1.8.2009 in terms of the impugned order dated 11.8.2009 (Annexure A-1).
3. The respondents, in the reply through preliminary submission (last para at page 46), has categorically stated that the respondent No.1 i.e. MCD is of the view no further re-employment is likely to be granted beyond 31.1.2010 in the present circumstances and it is further stated that in view of fact that re-employment shall not be given to the T.C. Arora beyond 31.1.2010, the present OA may be dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for applicant has fairly stated that Shri T.C. Arora, after expiry of re-employment period, has not been given further extension/re-employment, and in fact, the applicant is looking after the work of the Additional Director (PE). In view of the stand declared, no direction is required to be passed for quashing the impugned order.
5. In light of above, the grievance of the applicant regarding filling up the post of the Additional Director, by way of re-employment, does not survive. So far as the grievance of the applicant regarding promotion to the post of Additional Director (PE) on regular basis is concerned, the respondents in their reply affidavit have explained the circumstances due to which the regular DPC could not be held. It has also been stated that the OA No. 1731/2009 filed by one Shri N.K. Ghai is pending before this Tribunal and thus, the matter has been kept pending to avoid further litigation.
6. In view of the stand taken by the respondents, no mandatory direction can be given to the respondents to fill up the post of Additional Director (PE) on regular basis. We see no reason why the case of the applicant shall not be considered in case he is eligible in accordance with law.
7. In view of what has been stated above, the claim of the applicant does not survive as on today. Accordingly, the OA is disposed of with no order as to costs.
(Dr. Veena Chhotray) (M.L. Chauhan) Member (A) Member (J) /lg/