Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Parmanand Lal vs Secretary on 21 December, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.1320/2011 MA No.2714/2011 New Delhi, this the 21st day of December, 2011 Honble Mr. Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) Parmanand Lal S/o Late Phulan Lal 202, New Modern Apartment, Rohini, Sector-9, New Delhi. . Applicant. (Applicant in person) Versus Secretary Department of Telecommunications Sanchar Bhavan, Ashok Marg, New Delhi. Respondent. (By Advocates : Shri R. V. Sinha with Ms. Sangita Rai) : O R D E R : Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) :
Shri Parmanand Lal, a retired officer of the Department of Telecommunication (DOT), the applicant herein, has been visiting the Tribunal and the Honble High Court to get his grievances redressed. His last visit to the Tribunal was in OA No.943/2005 wherein he claimed his promotion to the Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) of Indian Telecom Service (ITS) w.e.f. 11.5.2000 on the ground that his juniors had been promoted from that date. The said OA was dismissed by the order dated 09.04.2008. The feeder category for JAG being Senior Time Scale (STS) his claim in the said OA was to treat him as regular STS w.e.f. 09.07.1990. He considered Shri Kalia and others as his junior in the STS Grade. This contention was not accepted by the Tribunal on the ground that he was promoted as STS officer on 09.07.1990 on locally officiating and purely temporary/ad hoc arrangement made in view of the operational requirements which does not confer any right towards his seniority in that grade. Two such orders of ad hoc postings have been referred to in the Tribunal order. Transfer on such local arrangements does not also grant any seniority. It was the case of the applicant that by virtue of Allahabad High Court order in WP(C) No.2739/1981, the applicant who was earlier treated as promoted to TES Group B on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 12.05.1977, was treated on regular basis vide OM dated 27.06.1986. In view of this, his claim was that he would be definitely senior to Shri Kalia as Shri Kalia was appointed against Direct quota in 1986 to JTS of ITS Group A. Thus it is claimed that treating 12.05.1977 as the date on which he was promoted as TES Group B on regular basis, he would have got promotion to ITS Group A before 1986. As this Tribunal did not consider this aspect of the controversy, the Honble High Court of Delhi considering the above aspects disposed of the WP(C) No.3702/2008 in following terms on 21.04.2009:
4. Since the petitioner has retired from service, it is not necessary to remit the case back to the Tribunal. Instead we direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for further promotion from TES Group B treating the petitioner to have been promoted to the said post from regular post w.e.f. 12.05.1977. On this basis, if he gets promotion to ITS Group A before 1986 when Mr. Kalia was appointed as a direct recruit to the said post, the petitioner may be considered for promotion to JAG, vis-a-vis, Mr. Kalia. Necessary consideration in this behalf would be met within a period of three months and speaking orders be passed.
2. Since the respondents did not comply with the above directions, the applicant moved the CM No.12187/2009 in the said Writ Petition which was decided by disposing of and giving liberty to the applicant to approach this Tribunal. The order of the High Court dated 21.12.2010 reads thus:
The controversy taken note of hereinabove would clearly demonstrate that the issues need to be thrashed out thoroughly after looking into all these records. This exercise is not permissible by means of the application filed and disposed of in the writ petition. In this case, the orders dated 02.09.2009 passed by the respondents provide fresh cause of action to the petitioner. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by that order, appropriate remedy would be to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal in the first instance by filing application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act as per law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. UOI 1997 (3) SCC 261.
This application is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal.
Needless to mention that the Tribunal shall decide the case on its merits without being influenced by the decision of this court.
3. Impugning the order dated 02.09.2009 issued by the respondent and pursuant to the above direction, the applicant is before the Tribunal in the instant OA.
4. The applicant, who argued in person, would submit that the impugned Memo dated 2.09.2009 was not true compliance of Honble High Court order dated 21.04.2009, as no cogent reason had been given. Referring to the direction of High Court dated 21.04.2009, he would urge that applicants prayer to treat him to have been promoted to JAG of ITS Group before anybody was appointed to JAG had not been addressed in the said impugned order. He cited the names of Shri A. K. Kalia, Shri Chhabinath and Shri Ajit Singh, who joined later than the applicant in STS, on the basis of which he should have been put ahead of Shri Kalia who joined as JAG on 6.02.1998, Shri Ajit Singh on 24.05.2001 and Chhabinath on 28.05.2001. His another plea is that in terms of Recruitment Rules of 1965, the applicant was eligible for STS even 7 years earlier to joining STS on 19.07.1990 while Shri Kalia was not even eligible to join STS on 13.07.1990 as he had not completed 5 years as ADET whereas the applicant was eligible for JTS since 1981 considering him TES Group-B w.e.f. 12.05.1977. He further submits that respondents have failed to justify any stumbling block against the implementation of the order dated 21.04.2009 of Delhi High Court in WP(C) No.3702/2008 for promoting the applicant to JAG on or before 6.02.1998 when Shri Kalia was promoted. In view of the above, the applicant submits to allow his OA.
5. On receipt of notice the respondent has entered appearance through Shri R.V. Sinha learned Senior Central Government Counsel and filed counter reply affidavit on 08.08.2011. During the hearing Shri Sinha would submit that as per the Honble Supreme Court direction in CA No. 4339/1995 decided on 26.04.2000, the Blue Book was amended by revising the Seniority List No.1 on 22.12.2000. According to the said revised seniority list the applicants seniority position in TES Gr. B was fixed at 161 between Priswanath Pradhan at 162 and Shri R.S. Deshpande at 160. He was placed at para with 1976-77 Batch of TES Group B. Further it is stated that he along with his seniors and juniors were considered and promoted to the Junior Time Scale (JTS) grade with effect from 17.07.2002 on regular basis for the vacancy year 1996-1997. Shri Sinha contended that the applicant has not been promoted to the next higher grade of Senior Time Scle (STS) on regular basis as no junior has also been promoted to the STS. He submits that Shri Kalia, who has been directly recruited as ITS Group A officer of 1986 JTS Batch whereas the applicant was JTS promotee officer of 1996-1997 vacancy year. His contention is that applicant has been junior to Shri Kalia by 10 years in JTS. It is further submitted that as per Recruitment Rules, 1992 (RR) JTS officers with 4 years service in the grade are eligible for promotion to STS grade and the promotion is based on seniority with fitness.
6. Having heard the contentions of the parties, we perused the pleadings as well.
7. Applicants main prayer is that the impugned order dated 02.09.2009 is not the true compliance of the directions of the Honble High Court of Delhi in CWP No. 3702/2008. The said direction was for the respondents to find out whether the applicant could have been promoted to JTS of ITS Group A before Mr. Kalia was directly recruited. If they find the same to be in favour of the applicant he would become senior to Kalia and thus applicants further promotion to STS and JAG in ITS Group A should be considered. It is noticed from the impugned order that the applicant was promoted to JTS w.ef.. 17.07.2002 for the vacancies arising in the year 1996-97 whereas, Shri Kalia was directly recruited to JTS in the year 1986. In our considered view the applicant is junior to Shri Kalia atleast by 10 years. Hence, applicants further promotion to STS and JAG cannot in any manner be linked to Shri Kalias seniority and promotion.
8. However, if we consider the case of the applicant for further promotion from JTS of ITS Group A to STS and JAG, we would need to refer to the Recruitment Rules. As per the Schedule III of the RR the eligibility condition for the JTS officers is four years of regular service in the JTS grade to be considered for promotion to STS and the promotion is through the process by non selection method mainly by seniority. In the above setting of the RR if the applicants case is examined, we notice that he has been found eligible/fit to be inducted to JTS of ITS Group A for the vacancy year 1996-97. Had he been promoted in 1996, he would have become eligible for consideration of his regular promotion to STS in the year 200001. Unfortunately the DPC conducted by UPSC for promotion quota for the vacancy year 1996-1997, 1997-1998, 1998-1999 and 1999-2000, on 24th to 27th June, 2002 and found the applicant as fit for the JTS for the vacancy year 1996-1997 and the order was issued on 30.09.2002. The order was given effect to w.e.f. 17.07.2002. The delay was mainly due to the respondent. The applicant cannot be made to suffer. If the applicants seniority in JTS is notionally fixed for the vacancy year 1996-1997, he would be eligible to be considered for regular promotion to STS in the year 2000-2001. Thereafter, the applicant, as per the RR, would have been eligible after 5 years of regular service for considering him for promotion to the next higher post of JAG in ITS Group A. As the applicant has now retired, only he would get the retirement benefits including pension at the higher rate meant for the post of STS/JAG as the case may be. The impugned order dated 02.09.2009 has not examined these aspects. To that extent the applicants grievances subsist.
9. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the statutory Recruitment Rules, 1992, applicable in the case we are of the considered opinion that the applicant has been inducted to JTS of ITS Group A for the year 1996-1997. Thus, we direct the respondents to consider the applicants year of induction to JTS as 1996-1997 and examine whether he would be eligible to be notionally promoted to the next higher posts of STS and JAG as per law and if the decision of the Competent Authority goes in favour of the applicant, he would be entitled to the consequential retirement benefits. Let the exercise as ordained in the above directions be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The applicant shall be provided a copy of such a decision within the said period.
10. In terms of our above directions, the OA is disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) (V. K. Bali) Member(A) Chairman pj