Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Shashikant V Gunagi vs Western Naval Command on 7 November, 2022
1 OA No.209/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00
NO.170/00209/2021
MONDAY, DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S SUJATHA ...MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE MR.RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA ...MEMBER(A)
Shri Shashikant
Shashikan V.Gunagi,
S/o Vithoba Gunagi,
Aged about: 40 years,
Working as Electrical Fitter-SK,
Fitter
NSRY, Naval base,
Karwar - 581 308,
Residing at: Sonarwada,
BAAD, Karwar - 581 304. .... Applicant
(ByAdvocate
ByAdvocate Shri P.Kamalesan )
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Represented by Secretary,
Ministry of Defence (Navy),
Directorate of Civilian Personnel,
D-11,
11, Wing-Sena
Wing Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Head Quarters,
Western Naval Command,
Sahid Bhagat Singh Road,
Mumbai -400
- 001.
2 OA No.209/2021
3. The Commander in charge,
HQ FO (K),
Naval Base, Karwar-581
Karwar 308.
4. The Flag Officer Commanding,
HQ (For eso P&A),
Karnataka Naval area,
Naval base, Karwar - 581 308.
5. The Admiral Superintendent,
A.M (P&A),
NSRY -Naval
Naval base,
Karwar - 581 308. ...Respondents
(By Advocate Shri S.Prakash Shetty)
O R D E R (ORAL
ORAL)
Per: Justice S.Sujatha ...........Member(J)
The applicant is challenging the letter No.HAD/5213 dated 20.08.2020 issued by the HRD Naval base Karwar (Annexure A12), inter alia seeking a direction to the respondents to consider him for retrospective promotion from the date of eligibility in accordance with Rules, with all consequential benefits.
2. The applicant was was appointed as Unskilled L Labourer on regular basis from 01.10.2005 01.10.2005 vide letter No.CS(11) 2577/BP dated 27.09.2005 issued by the HQ Western Naval Command, Mumbai. The applicant claims that he appeared in the Department Qualifying 3 OA No.209/2021 Examination (DQE) at unit unit level, Industrial semi semi-Skilled for the year 2009 and was qualified as per the results declared by HQ, Western Naval Command, Mumbai vide letter No.CS/11/3230/IND/DQE/Muk/SSK dated 21.06.2010. The department again conducted DQE in the year 2012, wherei wherein the applicant qualified again.
3. The integrated HQ Ministry of Defence (Navy) Directorate of Civilian personnel, New Delhi issued orders for revised cadre restructure in Indian Navy, according to which for the Grade of Skilled, the percentage fixed is is 45%. It is the grievance of the applicant that though he was eligible for promotion to the grade of Skilled from Unskilled during 2010, he was promoted w.e.f 02.07.2015. Hence this application.
4. Mr.P.Kamalesan learned Counsel representing the applicant Mr.P.Kamalesan, submitted that the respondents failed to adhere to the ins instructions on model calendar DPCs, DPCs issued by DOPT, and never held DPC from 2010 to 2015 for promotion of Unskilled Labour Labourer to Skilled Labourer, which resulted in delayed promotion to the applicant. The applicant on fulfilling the eligibility condition condition, was eligible for promotion from 2010, but the respondents issued draft seniority 4 OA No.209/2021 roaster, 2014 showing the applicant's qualification qualification as DQE in 2012.
Accordingly, seeks for retrospective promotion from the date of eligibility i.e., 2010, 2010, the date of passing the DQE DQE.
5. A detailed detail reply has been filed by the respondents. The learned Counsel Mr.Prakash Shetty, representing representing the respondents drawing the attention of the Bench to the said reply, submitted that tthe applicant was recruited as Unskilled labourer and his recruitment was governed by SRO 150/2000, wherein promotion to Tradesman (Skilled) required 8 years of service i.e., 4 years each in Unskilled Labourer and Semi-skilled skilled Worker grade with fulfilment of other promotional criteria. As per SRO 43/2012, 3 years Tradesman TMM/DR subject to qualifying in DQE, vacancy/other promotion criteria was required. As the post of Semi-skilled Worker was abolished, subsequently post of Unskilled labourer was upgraded to Group 'C' and re re-designated as Multi Tasking Staff (MTS (IND)) with effect from 01.01.2006 onwards. Further it was re-designated re designated as Tradesman Mate with effect from 27.02.2013 onwards, as per directives of GOI/MOD(Navy). SRO 43/2012 supercedes SRO 150/2000 which was notified on Gazette of India on 18.05.2012, wherein mandatory qualifying years 5 OA No.209/2021 of service in MTS(IND) for promotion to Tradesman (Skilled) was reduced ced to 3 years.
6. The learned Counsel further argued that the applicant had appeared in DQE in Electrical Electrical Fitter Trade in December, 2012 for promotion to the post of Tradesman (Skilled) as per SRO 43/2012. Thus the applicant became eligible for promotion/zone of consideration only after 01.04.2013 subject to fulfilment of promotional criteria. The combined base roaster of seniority list as on 31.12.2013 was prepared by the competent authority and forwarded to the concerned units where employee employees/individuals were borne. The same was circulated by INS Kadamba where the applicant was borne for scrutinising the position in the seniority list and discrepancies thereof. But no objection was raised by the applicant at that point of time. Subseq Subsequently, the applicant was promoted by first DPC 2015-2016 2015 2016 and got the consequential bene benefits.
There is a delay of 10 years in filing the present OA and the same deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.
7. The learned Counsel further submitted tthat the number of posts of Tradesman (Skilled) is restricted to 45% of overall strength and further amplified vide IHQ/DCMPR letter CMPR/1029/RT/Policy 6 OA No.209/2021 dated 29.03.2017. The strength of recruitment by departmental promotion to Tradesman (Skilled) is restricted restricted to 45% of strength of skilled cadre. Thus the learned Counsel sought for dismissal of the application.
8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
9. Though the applicant appeared and cleared DQE in 2009 for promotion of Semi-skilled Semi skilled Worker as per old SRO 150/2000, again the applicant was required to clear the DQE as per the new SRO 43/20012, Accordingly, the applicant cleared DQE in December, 2012 012 in Electrical Fitter Trade for promotion promotion to Tradesman (Skilled).
As the applicant was recruited as per SRO 150/2000, 8 years was required for promotion to Tradesman (Skilled) and the years of service got reduced to 3 years vide SRO 43/2012. Therefore Therefore, the first DPC was conducted in 2015, post approval of re re-structuring of artisan staff. The applicant was promoted to the grade of Tradesman (Skilled) Electrical Fitter Trade in the year 2015 on completion of 3 years of service, on clearing DQE in December, December, 2012. The claim of the applicant seeking retrospective promotion to Tradesman (Skilled) 7 OA No.209/2021 from the date of qualifying in the first DQE conducted in 2009 cannot be considered, since the applicant got qualified in DQE in Electrical Fitter Trade in December, December, 2012, as per new Recruitment Rules SRO 43/2012 and thus was eligible for promotion/zone of consideration only in April, 2013, subject to fulfilment of promotional criteria.
10. It is not in dispute that the applicant was promoted along with 17 other eligible employees in the year 2015 and the same remain remained unchallenged till an application was submitted by the applicant on 28.11.2019. In the DPC held in 2009 in terms of SRO 150/2000 150/2000, 4 years as Unskilled Labourer and 4 years in Semi Semi-skilled worker Trade subject to qualifying in DQE, vacancy and other promotion criteria were the requisite factors for eligibility eligibility. The same not having been fulfilled, the applicant has appeared and cleared DQE in December, 2012 in terms of new SRO 43/2012. He was placed in select panel during DPC 2015 for the vacancy year 2015 2015-2016 and was promoted with effect from 02.07.2015, seeking retrospective promotion to the post of Tradesman at this juncture is wholly misconceived.
11. The applicant having accepted accepted the promotion from the year 2015-2016 2016 without any protest, cannot seek for retrospective 8 OA No.209/2021 promotion at this stage.
stage. On the ground of delay and la laches also, the application requires to be rejected. Thus promotion to the grade of Thus, Skilled Worker after the first DPC held subsequent to the new SRO 43/2012 coming into force, force is justifiable and no fault can be found with the impugned order dated 20.08.2020 (Annexure A12).
12. For the reasons aforesaid, the original application being bereft of merit, stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (JUSTICE S.SUJATHA)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
sd.