Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Unknown vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary To ... on 11 March, 2013
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 103/2013 Jaipur, the 11th day of March, 2013 CORAM : HONBLE MR.JUSTICE K.S.RATHORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER HONBLE MR.ANIL KUMAR, ADMINISITRATIVE MEMBER Satish Chand Upadhyay son of Shri Shiv Charan lal Upadhyay, aged about 48 years, resident of 10/75, Chitrakoot, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur and presently working as Manager (Technical), National Highways Authority of India, Office of Project Director, Project Implement Unit, Under Regional Office Jaipur, 156, Girnar Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. Applicant (Applicant present in person) Versus 1. Union of India through its Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Road Transport & Highways, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, New Delhi. 2. Chairman, National Highways Authority of India, G-5 & 6, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi. 3. Chief General Manager (Admn./HR), National Highways Authority of India, G-5 & 6, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi. 4. Shri P.R. Patelia, Chief General Manager cum Regional Officer, National Highways Authority of India, B-1, Nityanand Nagar, Queens Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. 5. Shri Rakesh Kumar, Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Project Implement Unit, 156, Girnar Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. Respondents (By Advocate : None)) ORDER (ORAL)
Brief facts of the case are that the applicant is a substantive employee of CPWD. He was subsequently sent on deputation to National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) in 2008. While working with NHAI Headquarter, he was posted at Regional Office, Jaipur vide office order dated 21.07.2010 (Annexure A/5).
2. He joined NHAI on 24.03.2008. His deputation period was upto 23.03.2011. This deputation period was proposed to be extended from 23.03.2011 to 23.03.2013 vide letter dated 12.01.2012 (Annexure A/7) and the concurrence of the Parent Department i.e. CPWD was requested for extension of deputation period. However, before the proposed extended period of deputation i.e. 23.03.2013, the applicant was repatriated and relieved to his Parent Department i.e. CPWD vide office letter dated 04.02.2013 (Annexure A/1). Aggrieved by this order dated 04.02.2013, the applicant has filed this OA.
3. The applicant in the OA has stated that he is staying at Jaipur with his family and that two children are studying at Jaipur. They are presently in 12th & 7th Class. That his elder daughter is preparing for IIT/ AIEEE and she was also awarded appreciation letter dated 31.01.2012 from the Honble Minister of Human Resources, Shri Kapil Sibal. Copy of the Fee receipt and letter of appreciation have ben annexed as Annexure A/9 and Annexure A/10 respectively.
4. The applicant also made request for permanent absorption but without any base, his name was kept away from the eligibility list for which certain information has been desired from the respective department vide letter dated 31.01.2013 (Annexure A/14).
5. That the respondent no. 4 due to malafide action got the applicant transferred from Jaipur to Headquarter Delhi vide letter dated 16.07.2012. Subsequently the order was modified and he was shifted to Regional Office Jaipur to Project Implement Unit, Jaipur vide order dated 07.08.2012 whereas the applicant is working. He also submitted that extension of deputation was upto 23.03.2013 and without any justified reasons, the respondents vide office order dated 04.02.2013 have repatriated the applicant. Therefore, the applicant has prayed that the order dated 04.02.2013 (Annexure A/1) be quashed and set aside. He had further requested that the respondents be directed to consider absorption of the applicant by placing his name in the eligibility list (Annexure A/14).
6. On the other hand, the respondents in their reply have admitted that the applicant was working on deputation with the National Highway Authority of India since 24.03.2008. His period of deputation was for three years. Thus this period expired on 23.03.2011. However, the case of the applicant for further extension of deputation upto 23.03.2013 was recommended (Annexure A/7).
7. The respondents in their reply have stated that the competent authority have informed vide letter dated 23.01.2013 that in view of the Average grading, the applicant be relieved forthwith latest upto 08.02.2013. However, the competent authority has regularized the tenure of the applicant from 24.03.2011 till the date of his relieving latest by 08.02.2013.
8. The respondents in their reply have stated that the deputation of the applicant could have been extended on approval of the Central Government and as the Central Government has refused the period of deputation of the applicant, the NHAI has issued letter dated 04.02.2013 by which the applicant was repatriated and relieved to his Parent Department with immediate effect (Annexure A/1).
9. The respondents in their reply have denied that there is malafide action on the part of respondents nos. 4 & 5 or any other respondents, as alleged by the applicant.
10. The respondents have also stated that the applicant was one of the applicant for the post of Manager (Technical) on absorption. However, his candidature was not found suitable by the Selection Committee as his Assessment Report was given as Average.
11. The respondents have in their reply stated that the repatriation is according to the guidelines and hence it cannot be said as unjustified and illegal. In fact NHAI has been adjusting his request for transfer and considering his request. On his request the applicant was transferred from NHAI Head office to Regional Office, NHAI at Jaipur. Again on his request, his order from Jaipur to NHAI Head Office was cancelled and he was accommodated at PIU, NHAI, Jaipur. Therefore, they have stated that this OA has no merit and it should be dismissed.
12. Since the Advocates are abstaining from work, the applicant was heard in person. He prayed that since it is an urgent matter and his deputation period was upto 23.03.2013 and he has been repatriated on 04.02.2013, therefore, his case may be heard. Looking into urgency of the case, we have heard the applicant in person and also carefully perused the reply submitted by the respondents. The applicant prayed that his only request would be to allow him to work on deputation with NHAI upto 23.03.2013, the period which was recommended by the respondents for extension. He is not pressing for other reliefs as prayed in the OA including the prayer of absorption in NHAI.
13. It is not disputed that the applicant was on deputation from CPWD to NHAI with effect from 24.03.2008 for a period of three years or until further order whichever is earlier. Subsequently, the recommendation was sent to the competent authority to extend the deputation period of the applicant from 23.03.2011 to 23.03.2013 vide letter dated 12.01.2012 (Annexure A/7) and again on 01.01.2013 (Annexure R/4). But the respondents vide letter dated 23.01.2013 refused to give extension of deputation period to the applicant on the ground that he has Average grading, however, the intervening period (23.11.2011 to 08.02.2013 or date of relieving) was regularized.
14. This Tribunal vide order dated 08.02.2013 had passed the interim order stating that the status quo of the applicant as it exists today shall be maintained till the next date. This interim order was continued from time to time.
15. Looking to the fact that NHAI had recommended the case of the applicant for extension of deputation upto 23.03.2013 vide letter dated 12.01.2012 (Annexure A/7) and again 01.01.2013 (Annexure R/4), it appears that NHAI was satisfied with the working & performance of the applicant and, therefore, they recommended for the extension of the deputation period for two more years i.e. 23.03.2011 to 23.03.2013. However, the Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways did not accord extension of the applicant in view of his Average grading and passed the order of repatriation dated 23.01.2013 (Annexure R/5). Since the extended tenure of the applicant was coming to an end on 23.03.2013, the Ministry could have waited for another two months and could have allowed the applicant to complete his proposed extended tenure. There is nothing adverse against the applicant. It was only because of his Average grading that the applicant has been repatriated. Though the applicant has no legal right to continue on deputation upto 23.03.2013 but looking to the facts of the case that two daughters of the applicant are studying at Jaipur and one of them is a student of 12th Class, therefore, the repatriation in the month of February would disturb the family of the applicant. Moreover, the normal tenure of the applicant in any case would come to an end on 23.03.2013. The NHAI and the Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways are in any case competent not to further extend the deputation period of the applicant. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deemed it proper to quash & set aside the order of repatriation dated 04.02.2013 (Annexure A/1) and direct the respondents to allow the applicant to work with the NHAI on deputation basis till 23.03.2013. It is further clarified that after the completion of this deputation that is upto 23.03.2013, the respondents are at liberty to repatriate the applicant if they so desire. The interim order granted on 08.02.2013 shall automatically be stand vacated on 23.03.2013.
16. With these observations, the OA is disposed of with no order as to costs.
(Anil Kumar) (Justice K.S.Rathore) Member (A) Member (J) AHQ