Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Narendra Dhyani vs M/O Chemicals And Fertilizers on 13 September, 2022
1
O.A. No. 3724/2018
Item No. 17
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
M.A. No. 4158/2018
In
O.A. No. 3724/2018
This the 13th day of September, 2022
Hon'bleMr. Ashish Kalia, Member (J)
1. Narendra Dhyani, MTS,
Deptt. of Chemicals and Petrochemicals
( Group 'D')
Aged About 52 Years,
S/o Late Shri Ram Dayal,
R/o C-426, Albert Square, Gole Market,
New Delhi - 110001
2. Vijender Singh, MTS, Deptt. Of Chemicals and
Petrochemicals( Group 'D')
Aged About 5 Years,
S/o Late Shri Uday Singh
R/o Village- Leherara, Distt. Sonipat
Haryana
3. Om Pal Singh, MTS, Department of
Pharmaceuticals
(Group 'D')
Aged About 52 Years,
S/o Shri Shyam Singh,
R/o 77/265, Sector-I, DIZ Area
R.K. Ashram Marg, New Delhi - 110 001
4. Pawan Kumar, MTS, Deptt. Of Chemicals and
Petrochemicals( Group 'D')
Aged About 52 Years,
S/o Late Shri Gopy Ram
R/o Sector-I, DIZ Area
R.K. Ashram Marg, New Delhi - 110 001
2
O.A. No. 3724/2018
Item No. 17
5. Mangal Singh, MTS, Department of
Pharmaceuticals
(Group D')
Aged About $2 Years,
S/o Late Shri Aalam Singh,
R/o 1794, Laxmi Bai Nagar
New Delhi- 110023
6. Ram Prasad, MTS, Deptt. Of Chemicals and
Petrochemicals( Group 'D')
Aged About Years
S/o Late Shri Ganga Prasad,
R/o 74/11, Vikash Nagar, Applicants
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi
.....Applicants
(Advocate: Mr. Suresh Sharma)
Versus
1. Secretary, Department of Chemicals and
Petrochemicals,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001
2. Secretary, Department of Pharmaceuticals,
Shastri Bhawan
New Delhi-1100001
3. The Joint Secretary (Estt.),
Deptt. of Chemicals and Petrochemicals,
Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001
4. Shri Gajraj Singh MTS,
Deptt. Of Chemicals and Petrochemicals( Group'D")
Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001
5. Shri Ram Prashad, MTS,
Deptt. of Chemicals and Petrochemicals (Group D')
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001
3
O.A. No. 3724/2018
Item No. 17
6. Shri Bishan Chand, MTS, Deptt. of Chemicals and
Petrochemicals (Group D)
Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001
7. Shri Dharam Pal Singh, MTS,
Deptt. of Chemicals and Petrochemicals (Group 'D)
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001
....Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. Vijender Singh)
O R D E R (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Member (J) In the present Original Application, following reliefs have been sought:
" (i) To declare as illegal and arbitrary the impugned action of respondents in not appointing the applicants as regular consequent upon their respective completion of two years in terms of Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms' office Memorandum No. A- 49011/4/77-Estt.(C) dated 21.03.1979 as has been done in respect of private respondents.
(ii) To direct the respondent to treat the services of applicants as regular from the date of completion of two years' service as casual workers, with all consequential benefits.
(iii) To grant MACP to the applicants from their respective due dates as per their regularization prayed for
(iv) To allow the O.A. with cost.
(v) Such other and further order which their Lordships of this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may please be passed."
2. The grievances of the applicants are that they are working as MTS with the respondents, the details of the applicants are mentioned herein below:
4O.A. No. 3724/2018 Item No. 17
S. No. Name of Date/ Year of Date of Date of
Employee Joining as appointment Eligibility
Casual Worker on Ad hoc for grant of
Basis Regular
Appointment
as per DP &
AR OM
dated
21.03.1979
1. Narendra March, 1984 01.04.1986 01.04.1986
Dhyani
2. Vijender Singh 15.04.1985 15.04.1987 15.04.1987
3. Om Pal Singh 20.01.1986 08.02.1989 08.02.1989
4. Pawan Kumar 20.01.1986 08.02.1989 08.02.1989
5. Mangal Singh 20.01.1986 08.02.1989 08.02.1989
6. Ram Prasad November, 01.01.1988 01.01.1988
1986
and the seniority list was published in the year 2016 where the private respondents nos. 4, 2, 7 were shown above them. They being aggrieved by the said seniority list, made representations on 07.03.2017 and 09.08.2018 which were not decided by the respondents and feeling aggrieved, they approached this Tribunal by filing the instant OA.
3. Notices were issued. Mr. Vijender Singh, learned senior standing counsel, pointed out that he has submitted in the reply that the seniority list was published on 28.04.1999. Now, after lapse of twenty years. They reagitating the case and vide office memorandum dated 16.08.2016, seniority list was issued on 5 O.A. No. 3724/2018 Item No. 17 29.07.2016. Objections were raised by the applicants. In the present case, we refer DoP&T guidelines dated 01.04.1989 during the course of the arguments which read as under:
"4. In this connection, it will be pertinent to point out that the Revised Scheme differs from the scheme issued in February, 1966 broadly in the following areas:
4.1 The Revised Scheme envisages that the Staff declared Surplus will be transferred to a Surplus Staff Establishment to be created in each Ministry/Department, pending their redeployment. The temporary posts held by the surplus employees shall be transferred to the said Establishment.
Wherever the posts held by the Surplus employees are permanent, these will be abolished and in lieu thereof supernumerary posts will be deemed to have been created for the surplus employees in the Surplus Staff Establishment. These posts will get abolished immediately on the concerned Surplus employees being relieved whether to join other posts or as a result of their retirement, resignation, etc., whichever is earlier. 4.2 In the Revised Scheme there is no provision for the time-bound termination of services/ retrenchment of the surplus employees who cannot be redeployed within a period of six months. Accordingly, there shall be no retrenchment of Surplus Staff in future after the expiry of 6 months period. Further the Revised Scheme envisages that at least for the first three months a surplus employee will not be nominated for absorption in a post carrying a lower pay-scale. The Revised Scheme also prescribes that the concerned redeploying agency can direct the surplus nominee to join the post if no objection is received from the recipient organization within one month and the recipient organization will be under obligation to accept such employee. 4.3 The earlier scheme contains no provision for readjustment of a person who has already been redeployed. In the Revised Scheme a provision has been made that the surplus employees who have already been redeployed in posts carrying lower pay scales or lower Government from time to time. Necessary rules may, in this connection, be framed by the Department of Personnel & Training."
4. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the respondents has handed over a copy of revised seniority list dated 12.02.2019, vide which the grievance of the applicants has been redressed and they have been shown from S. Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10 onwards. Learned counsel for the respondents further 6 O.A. No. 3724/2018 Item No. 17 submits that, in a way, relief has already been granted to the applicants.
5. To the contrary, learned counsel for the applicants submits that Mr. Dharam Pal Singh is still shown above the applicants and their grievance is still pending. Otherwise, they are satisfied.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents further states that the respondent S.No. 10, Mr. Dharam Pal Singh, is a SC candidate and he has been given seniority as per the roster file.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicants are still aggrieved as Mr. Dharam Pal Singh is shown above them in the revised seniority list.
8. This Tribunal has gone through the pleadings, and of the view that the grievance of the applicants are redressed. So far as the issue regarding placement of Mr. Dharam Pal Singh in concerned, the applicants have a fresh cause of action, although he has made as respondent no. 7 in the present Original Application.
9. In view of this, nothing survives in the present Original Application. The liberty is granted to the applicants to take agitate their grievance with the respondents. 7 O.A. No. 3724/2018 Item No. 17
10. As regard other reliefs so prayed for, it is needless to point out if the applicants are entitled for other consequential benefits, respondents may release the same. Reply additional affidavit has been placed on record during the course of hearing.
11. In view of this, OA is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions. Pending MA's, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.
(Ashish Kalia) Member(J) /aks/