Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
B J Dhananjaya vs Environment And Forest on 10 January, 2023
1 OA No.20/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00
NO.170/00020/2023
DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S SUJATHA ...MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE MR.RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA ...MEMBER(A)
1. Shri B.J.Dhananjaya,
S/o B.S.Jayana,
Aged about 35 years,
Working as Technician,
Institute of Wood Science Technology,
18th Cross,
Malleshwaram,
Bangalore - 560 003.
2. Shri L.Manjunatha,
S/o Sri T.Lankappa,
Aged about 37 years,
R/a# C/o Chandramma,
FDA Sir M.V. Layout,
Bengaluru,
Working as Technician Institute of Wood
And Science Technology,
18th Cross,
Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru - 560 003. .... Applicants
(ByAdvocate
ByAdvocate Shri M.Rajakumar)
Vs.
2 OA No.20/2023
1. The Secretary,
Secreta
Ministry of Environment & Forests,
F
Government of India,
Pariyavarna Bhavan,
CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003.
2. The Director General,
Indian Council of Forest Research
and
nd Education,
P.O. New Forest,
Dehradun - 248 006.
3. The Secretary,
Indian Council of Forest Research
and Education,
P.O.New Forest,
Dehradun - 248 006.
4. The Director,
Institute of Wood Science
&Technology,
Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru - 560 018. ...Respondents
3 OA No.20/2023
O R D E R (ORAL
ORAL)
Per: Justice S.Sujatha ...........Member(J)
This application is filedd by the applicant under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking for the following reliefs:
i) "To set-aside
set aside the impugned order vide No.63
No.63-19/2020-
ICFRE (TSR) 24.02.2022 at Annexure A14 issued by the 3rd Respondent and declare that New Technical service Rules 2013 at Annexure A6 with retrospect effect from 18.12.2013 vide notification No.63-19/2016-ICFRE No.63 ICFRE dated 01.03.2017 at Annexure A5, is not applicable to applicants and further declare that, applicants are entitled for up gradation of pay by protecting their pay scale as extended to others.
ii) To issue writ or any other appropriate order or writ to declare and hold that the applicants are eligible of up gradation pay scale as extended to employees who rec recruited along with applicants with all consequential benefits."
2. The facts in brief as stated by the applicants are that the they acquired qualification of Bachelor of Science during 2010 and also the 1st applicant possesses Master of Science degree during 2012. The applicants being fully qualified applied for the post of Technical 4 OA No.20/2023 Assistant pursuant to the Employment notific notification dated 30.11.2012 issued by the Institute of Wood Science and Technology and were selected being successful in the written written examination aand interview.
The applicants were appointed in the post of Technical Assistant in the office of the 4th Respondent as per the order dated 12.10.2015 issued by the 3rd Respondent. Their appointment was confirmed from 12.10.2015 on completion of two years probationary period. New rules viz., Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education Rules Technical Service of 2013 was issued with retrospective effect from rom 18.12.2013 vide notification No.63 No.63-19/2016-ICFRE dated 01.03.201 . The applicants submit that after coming into force of the 01.03.2017.
said Rules by order dated 04.07.2017 the designations of all Technical Assistant Grade 'C' (Gen) has been changed as Techn Technician by virtue of which the applicants are placed to category category-I from the present category II. The applicants submitted representation to 4th Respondent requesting to consider them as in service candidates who worked as Technical Assistant and further requested to change the designation of the applicants from Technician to Technical Assistant, since they were downgraded from Technical Assistant to Technician with Grade Pay of Rs.2000/-
Rs.2000/ as per the amended TSR 2013. In response, the respondents issued an endorsement dated 24.02.2022 5 OA No.20/2023 reiterating the stance furnished on 22.09.2017 22.09.2017, wherein it was conveyed that existed technical officials of ICFRE were considered for induction into the Technical service as per provision Appendix Appendix-XII of TSR-2013.
2013.
The concerned cerned staff cannot be inducted in higher scale as requested by them beyond the scope of Rules. Being aggrieved, the applicants have preferred this application.
3. The learned Counsel Shri M.Rajakumar representing the applicants would submit that the applicants were appointed much earlier to issuance of TSR 2013 and after due process, were selected and appointed as Technical Assistant in the office of Respondent No.4 No.4, that the respondents now downgraded the applicants to the post of Technician without intimation. The post of Technician is newly created post as per the notification dated 01.03.2017. The respondents instead of promoting the applicants from Technical Assistant to Senior Technical Assistant, Assistant have demoted to the post of Technician.
4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicants and perused the material on record.
5. It is noticed that the very same aapplicants, in OA No.400/2022 had challenged the order No.1-15/2016- 6 OA No.20/2023 2017/IWST/Estt.(DPC)/1193 dated 04.07.2017 and endorsement No.63-19/2017 19/2017-ICFRE(TSR)(part) ICFRE(TSR)(part) dated 22.09.2017, inter alia seeking a direction to the respondents to adjust or fit the applic applicants to the post of Technical Assistant/Senior Technical Assistant as per the order dated 04.07.2017 by considering the representations. The said application was dismissed along with MA No.335/2022 filed by the applicants for condonation of delay of 153 1535 days in filing the original application as well. It is essential to quote the relevant paragraphs of the said order, order which reads thus:
"6. At the outset, the application deserves to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. Indisputedly, the impugned orders dated 04.07.2017 and 27.09.2017 are challenged by the applicants in the year 2022. Section 20(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (Act for short) stipulates the period of limitation for presenting the application before the Tribunal.
Tribunal. In terms of 21(1)(a) of Act, where the final order is made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made, no application shall be admitted. No doubt Sub-section Sub ection (3) of Section 21 of the Act provides for condoning the delay subject to sufficient cause satisfactorily shown by the applicant for the delay caused. Accordingly, MA No.335/2022 has been filed by the applicant 7 OA No.20/2023 to condone the delay of 1535 days in filing the original application.
7. We have perused the affidavit filed by the applicants along with the said application. The said affidavit is bald and vague which cannot be construed as satisfactory explanation for condoning the inordinate delay of 1535 days. Moreover the reasons for delay caused certainly may not be the same for two applicants. The affidavit is filed by the first applicant even on behalf of the second applicant. The laxity on the part of the applicants cannot be condoned sinc since the courts can come to the rescue of the litigant who is vigilant about his rights and not to the person/persons who sleeps over the matter and raises from the slumber to suit his convenience. It is pertinent to note that any revision in promotion at tthis juncture would disturb the entire seniority list adversely affecting the rights of the other employees, hence we are not inclined to entertain the present Original Application.
8. Even on the ground of parity, no application could be held to be maintainable maintainable at this length of time, as the order referred to by the applicants is dated 04.07.2017 (Annexure A7). Moreover, the said order was issued based on the options given by the Research/Technical Officials of IWST to the Technical Service Rules, ICFRE ICFRE and on the recommendations of the DPC."
8 OA No.20/2023
6. It is thus clear that the very same order dated 04.07.2017 and endorsement dated 22.09.2017, which ha have been referred to and reiterated in the order/endorsement dated 24.02.2022 impugned herein being thee subject matter of the said OA, it was obligatory on the part of the applicant to disclose the same in this application. Suppressing the dismissal of the said OA No.400/2022, the present OA is filed. In fact this endorsement/order dated 24.02.2022 was very much available at the time of filing OA No.400/2022. Suppressing the same, a direction was sought to consider the representation submitted by them. The aforesaid conduct of the applicant manifestly establishes that the applicant has not approached approached this Tribunal with clean hands. Having suffered an order in OA No.400/2022, instituting the pre present OA on the very same grounds is unjustifiable. This is nothing but abuse of process of court and such action cannot be countenanced.
7. For the reasonss aforesaid, OA stands dis dismissed. Taking a lenient view, costs made easy.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (JUSTICE S.SUJATHA)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
sd.
9 OA No.20/2023