Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Gurubaksh Kumar S/O Sh. Kishan Chand vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through Secretary, ... on 25 October, 2007
ORDER
V.K. Bali, J. (Chairman)
1. Shri Gurubaksh Kumar, applicant herein, holding the post of Data Entry Operator Grade-B since 1992 with the National Crime Records Bureau, second respondent herein, has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking setting aside of Office Order dated 29.03.2006 vide which the second respondent had declined to relieve him to join on deputation in the Ministry of Labour & Employment, third respondent herein. In consequence of setting aside the impugned order dated 29.03.2006, the applicant seeks a direction to the second respondent to relieve him forthwith enabling him to take up the appointment on deputation basis on a post of Investigator Grade-II with the third respondent.
2. The facts that may be relevant culminating into filing the present Original Application with the twin reliefs, as mentioned above, reveal that the applicant has been working on the post of Data Entry Operator Grade-B since 1992 in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-6500 on ad hoc basis with the second respondent. It is the case of the applicant that despite best efforts put by him in the department for the last almost 14 years he has not been able to get promotion and is stagnating on the same post. He was entitled to be promoted as Data Entry Operator Grade-B from the date he completed six years of regular service. The stagnation of the applicant on the same post led to frustration, and to get over the same, he responded to an advertisement in the newspaper dated 8-14 October, 2005 for a vacancy in the post of Investigator Grade-II on deputation basis in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 with the third respondent. He applied through proper channel for the said post and the second respondent duly gave permission to him and forwarded his application to the third respondent. The applicant was selected for the post so advertised, and he accordingly informed about the same to his employer, the second respondent. It is the case of the applicant that in the month of February, 2006 the third respondent had addressed a letter to the second respondent with regard to relieving the applicant at the earliest or latest by 2nd March, 2006, and in reference to this letter the second respondent replied and informed the third respondent that the applicant was handling some sensitive work and, therefore, he could not be relieved by 31st May, 2006, but also stated that the applicant would be allowed to join on deputation post on 01.06.2006 or earlier. Despite assurance extended to the third respondent in the manner aforesaid, the second respondent, however, ultimately refused to relieve the applicant vide impugned order dated 29.03.2006. It is in the wake of facts as mentioned above, the present Original Application for the reliefs already indicated above has been filed.
3. When the matter came up for hearing before us on 30.07.2007, the counsel for the applicant urged that a number of persons similarly situated from the department of second respondent have been relieved to join various departments on deputation whereas, insofar as the applicant is concerned, he had been refused by the second respondent to join on deputation, on the ground that there is shortage of employees with the said respondent and, therefore, the applicant could not be spared from his job. Inasmuch as the plea of discrimination was raised for the first time in the rejoinder, Mrs. Promila Safaya, learned Counsel defending respondents No. 1 & 2 sought time to file reply to the rejoinder which has since been filed.
4. Before we may proceed to determine the controversy on the plea raised by the applicant pertaining to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, we may mention that no other point has been raised in support of his claim presumably for the reason that deputation is a tripartite arrangement and it does not vest any right with the employee to seek the same. Consent of borrowing and lending departments, as also the employee is essential as it is too well settled in service jurisprudence that deputation cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Insofar as the plea pertaining to discrimination is concerned, it has been pleaded as follows:
Mr. J.S. Rawat, DEO-A 'relieved on deputation w.e.f. 15.09.1007 for three years but his period of deputation was extended by the respondents till 2004.' Mr. N. Srinivas, DEO-A 'relieved on deputation w.e.f. 17.12.2002 for one year but his period of deputation was extended by the respondents till 2006.' Mr. R.S. Bisht, DEO-A 'relieved on deputation w.e.f. 09.09.2002 for three years.' Mr. K.S. Nagar, DPA-A 'relieved on deputation w.e.f. 30.11.2002 but his period of deputation was extended repeatedly and he is working still on deputation.' Mr. Ashok Kumar, DEO-B 'relieved on deputation w.e.f. 03.02.2004 but his period of deputation was extended repeatedly and he is working still on deputation.' Mr. V.R. Jayan, DEO-B 'relieved on deputation w.e.f. 30.11.2004 but he is working still on deputation.' Mr. P. Murthy, DEO-B 'relieved on deputation w.e.f. 31.12.2002 but his period of deputation was extended repeatedly and finally he was allowed to be permanently absorbed in the another department/Ministry.' Mr. K. Shekhar, DEO-B 'relieved on deputation w.e.f. 06.12.2000 to 05.12.2003.'
5. In the counter to the rejoinder filed on behalf of the respondents controverting the pleadings of the applicant, it has been pleaded that the applicant is trying to project wrong facts and figures before this Tribunal to gain undue favour. It is pleaded that Shri K. Shekhar and Shri V.R. Jayan are holding the posts of Junior Staff Officer and DPA-B, respectively and not as DEO-B, as claimed by the applicant to mislead this Tribunal. It is then pleaded that the applicant has not intentionally submitted the cancellation order dated 19.07.2006 in respect of Shri Sivakumar just to gain sympathy. It is further pleaded that no employee was relieved for any deputation during the year 2006 and the names of the employees quoted by the applicant pertained to the years 1997, 2000, 2002 and 2004, which is much before 2006, when policy of not allowing outside deputation had been enforced strictly due to serious vacancy position. It is then pleaded that the applicant has not been relieved due to acute shortage of staff as the respondents have a sanctioned strength of 405 out of which there are more than 100 vacancies. Bureau has been entrusted with many important National Projects like CCIS, CIPA, OCIS etc. For monitoring and implementation of these projects, the respondents require holding of workshops in the States and training of police personnel on regular basis. Bureau is also engaged in management and publication of various types of crime-statistics i.e. Crime in India, Accidental Deaths and Suicides in India, etc. A number of training courses are being held for inland and foreign police officers. Bureau is running some important National level Public Service Systems. All these efforts need an optimal level of manpower to run and maintain the projects and systems and, therefore, the respondents have not relieved the applicant for deputation as a result of mounting work pressure due to multifarious responsibilities entrusted to the Bureau. It is also pleaded that the applicant is misleading this Tribunal by alleging that the respondents have released other officials for deputation after his case was rejected. The fact is that no employee has been relieved on deputation since 2006. All the instances at serial Nos. 1 to 8 as mentioned above pertain to the years from 1997 to 2004 and the applicant has concealed the fact that he himself was on deputation from 16.08.1999 to 31.08.2001 with Ministry of Statistics as Junior Investigator. The factual position with regard to employees mentioned by the applicant from serial Nos. 1 to 8 has been mentioned in the counter reply as follows:
(i) Sl. No. 1 to 3 is a matter of record.
(ii) Sl. No. 4 - Shri K.S. Nagar, DPA-A was not relieved in the year 2002 and no extension has been allowed as claimed by the applicant. Shri K.S. Nagar was relieved on deputation w.e.f. 30.11.2004 for a period of three years. He is completing his deputation period only on 30.11.2007.
Sl. No. 5 - Shri Ashok Kumar, DEO-B was on deputation since 03.02.2004 for a period of three years. The borrowing department has already been requested to repatriate the individual vide respondents' letter dated 02.02.2007 and followed by a reminder dated 10.08.2007. The employee is overstaying (Annexure R-V & VI).
Sl. No. 6 - Shri V.R. Jayan is not holding the post of DEO-B as claimed by the applicant. Shri Jayan is holding a post of DPA-B and was relieved for deputation w.e.f. 30.11.2004 for a period of three years upto 30.11.2007. His borrowing department has already been requested to relieve him on completion of deputation period i.e. 30.11.2007 vide respondents' letter dated 20.06.2007 (Annexure R-VII).
Sl. No. 7 - Shri P. Murthy, DEO-B was relieved on deputation in the year 2002 and he was given NOC for permanent absorption vide respondents' letter dated 01.02.2005, keeping in view his request and prevalent policy at that time.
Sl. No. 8 - Shri K. Shekhar is not holding the post of DEO-B as claimed by the applicant. Shri Shekhar is in the grade of Junior Staff Officer and was relieved on deputation w.e.f. 06.12.2000 for a period of three years. He has already joined back his duty on 05.12.2003.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and with their assistance examined the records of the case.
7. In the context of the counter reply filed on behalf of the respondents, we find that the applicant has not been able to make out a case of discrimination that might have prejudiced him. It is the positive case of the respondents that pursuant to a policy made by the department, no employee has been relieved to occupy a deputation post since 2006. In that context, the comparison of the case of the applicant with Mr. J.S. Rawat, DEO-A, Mr. N. Srinivas, DEO-A and Mr. R.S. Bisht, DEO-A mentioned at serial Nos. 1 to 3 in the rejoinder would be wholly irrelevant. All these three employees were relieved far prior to 2006. Insofar as Shri J.S. Rawat, DEO-A is concerned, he occupied the post on deputation till 2004 only. Shri N. Srinivas, DEO-A was also relieved far prior to 2006 i.e. in the year 2002. His deputation was for one year but the same was extended upto 2006. Surely, the order of extension ought to have been passed in 2003. Shri R.S. Bisht, DEO-A was also relieved to occupy a post on deputation on 09.09.2002, far prior to 2006, and even his deputation was not beyond three years. Mr. K.S. Nagar, DPA-A, mentioned at serial No. 4 in the rejoinder, as per the case set up by the respondents, was relieved in the year 2002 and no extension was allowed to him. Shri Nagar was relieved on deputation w.e.f. 30.11.2004 for a period of three years. He too was sent on deputation before 2006. Insofar as Shri Ashok Kumar, DEO-B mentioned at serial No. 5 in the rejoinder is concerned, as per the case set up by the respondents, he was sent on deputation on 03.02.2004 for a period of three years. The borrowing department has already been requested to repatriate him vide letter dated 02.02.2007 followed by a reminder dated 10.08.2007 but he is overstaying. Shri V.R. Jayan, mentioned at serial No. 6 in the rejoinder, as per the case set up by the respondents, is not holding the post of DEO-B as claimed by the applicant. He is holding the post of DPA-B and was on deputation w.e.f. 30.11.2004 for a period of three years upto 30.11.2007 and the borrowing department has already been requested to relieve him on completion of his deputation period, vide letter dated 20.06.2007. Insofar as Shri P. Murthy, mentioned at serial No. 7 in the rejoinder is concerned, as per the case set up by the respondents, he was relieved for deputation in the year 2002 and was given No Objection Certificate for permanent absorption vide letter dated 01.02.2005 which was in tune with the policy prevalent at that time. Insofar as Shri K. Shekhar, mentioned at serial No. 8 in the rejoinder is concerned, as per the case set up by the respondents, he is not holding the post of DEO-B as claimed by the applicant. He is in the grade of Junior Staff Officer and was relieved on deputation w.e.f. 06.12.2000 for a period of three years and he has already joined back his duty on 05.12.2003.
8. The factual position given in the reply to rejoinder is record-based and could not be controverted either by filing reply to the same or during the course of arguments and what clearly transpires is that no employee of the second respondent had been spared to join a post on deputation after the policy was made in 2006 by the said respondent not to allow any employee for outside deputation. The applicant, as per the case set up by the respondents, has distorted the facts so as to mislead this Tribunal. The least we may, however, observe is that the applicant is ill-informed with regard to the persons mentioned by him who have been allegedly treated favourably in the matter of deputation. The plea of discrimination on the factual matrix as mentioned above fails. As mentioned above, no other point has been raised during the course of arguments.
9. There is no merit in the Application and the same is dismissed. There shall however be no order as to costs.