Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Smt. Murti Devi Wd/O Late Sh. Attar Singh vs Mr. Rakesh Mehta on 24 February, 2009
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench CP No. 425/2008 OA No. 1299/2007 New Delhi, this the 24th day of February, 2009 Honble Mr. Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman Honble Mr. L.K.Joshi, Vice Chairman(A) Smt. Murti Devi wd/o late Sh. Attar Singh, Working as Supervisor (Woman) Grade-II, Child Development & Welfare Project Officer, (DEO) Vishram Chowk, Sec. V Rohini, New Delhi. R/o 383, Village & PO Kanjhawala, Delhi 110 081. Applicant (By Advocate: Sh. H.P. Chakraborty) Versus 1. Mr. Rakesh Mehta, Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT Secretariat, IP Extension, New Delhi. 2. Mr. S.A. Awaradi, Director, Social Welfare, Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, GLNS Building, Delhi Gate, New Delhi 02. 3. Mr. V.K. Singh, Secretary, Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board, FC-18, Karkardooma Institutional Area, Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Ajesh Luthra and Sh. Vijay Pandita) ORDER (ORAL) Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman:
Applicant had filed Original Application No.1299/2007 seeking direction to be issued to the respondents to issue and circulate the seniority list of Supervisors Grade II, Rs. 4500-7000, in the Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, indicating the merit position of recruitment of 1998 with consequential benefits at par with her juniors. The Tribunal, vide its order dated 11.02.2008, directed the respondents to issue and circulate the seniority list of Supervisors Grade-II, indicating the merit position of recruitment of 1998. Present Contempt Petition has been filed complaining violation of directions contained in order dated 11.02.2008.
2. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, respondents have entered appearance and filed their respective replies. Along with the reply filed on behalf of respondent no. 2, a seniority list, which came to be framed pursuant to decision, referred to above, has been placed on record, vide letter dated 22.12.2008.
3. The complaint of the applicant is that the respondents may have issued the seniority list but the merit position of the candidates who were interviewed and selected in 1998 has not been indicated.
4. Counsel defending the respondents, on the other hand, would contend that the applicant was not interviewed in 1998 and, therefore, he filed OA No. 631/2004, which was decided by this Tribunal on 31st May, 2004, the operative part of which is reproduced as under:-
13. For these reasons, we allow the present application and direct that claim of the applicant should be reconsidered in accordance with rules and if she is found suitable, further necessary action in this regard may be taken.
5. It is pursuant to these directions, as reproduced above, the applicant was interviewed and selected for the post of Supervisor. It is relevant to mention here that there was no written examination, and the selection was made only on the basis of interview. It is urged on behalf of the respondents that the applicant cannot claim seniority over and above those who were appointed in 1998. The applicant was appointed in 2005 and even though, her appointment may be deemed from 1998, since the selection process/interview was not the same, she cannot claim seniority over and above those who were appointed in 1998.
6. Having heard the learned counsel representing the parties, we are of the view that there is sufficient compliance of our orders, non-compliance whereof has been complained in the present contempt petition. The respondents have indeed, pursuant to our directions, issued the seniority list. Even though, it is mentioned in our order dated 11.2.2008 that the respondents may issue and circulate the seniority list of Supervisors Grade-II including the merit position of recruitment of 1998, we are of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents could do no better. There is no deliberate or willful disobedience of our orders. If it be the case of the applicant that she should have been interviewed and selected, as per the interview that was conducted in 1998, even though, she was interviewed in 2005, she has to first vindicate that stand in appropriate proceedings. As mentioned above, we find no deliberate violation of our orders dated 11.2.2008 by the respondents.
7. With liberty to the applicant, however, to challenge the seniority list and claim seniority over and above those who have been shown senior to her, present contempt petition is closed.
(L.K. Joshi) (V.K. Bali) Vice Chairman (A) Chairman /naresh/