Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr. J. J. B. Prasad vs Union Of India Through on 22 September, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Original Application Nos.2274/2009, 2273/2009, 3125/2009, 2351/2009 2912/2009 & 2395/2009 This the 22nd day of September, 2010 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE SHRI L. K. JOSHI, VICE-CHAIRMAN (A) OA No.2274/2009 Dr. J. J. B. Prasad, Director, Armoured Vehicle Headquarters, Avadi, Chennai. Applicant (By Shri Vijay Shankar, Advocate ) Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Department of Defence Production, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi. 2. Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi. 3. Chairman/Directorate General of Ordnance Factories, Ordnance Factories Board, Kolkata-1. 4. The Committee for implementation of CAT Judgments, represented by its Chairman and Director General, Ordnance Factories Board, Kolkata-1. 5. Choudhary N.K., GM 991164, Mint, Alipore, GOI, Kolkata. 6. Mahapatra M.K. Jt.GM, 991163, Ordnance Factory, Dehradun-248008. 7. Rao D.V., Jt.GM 991166, Ordnance Factory, Medak, Yeddumailaram-502205 (AP). 8. Varma Ratheshwar, Jt.GM 991171, Ordnance Factory, Kanpur-208009. 9. Vasishth U., 991294, Jt. Development Commissioner, Kandala SEZ, Gandhinagar (Guj.). 10. Garg Mukul Kumar, Jt.GM, 991300, Ordnance Factory, Kanpur-208009. 11. Ravindran V. 991167, Director, Deptt. of Mines & Steel, New Delhi. 12. Jha R.S., Director, 991168, Ordnance Factory Board, 10-A, S.K.Bose Road, Kolkata-700001. 13. Sivanand N., Jt.GM 991261, Ordnance Factory, Medak, Yeddumailaram-502205 (AP). 14. Kishore Sanjeev, Jt.GM 991169, Ordnance Factory Kanpur-208009. 15. Kumar anil, Jt.GM 991170, Vehicle Factory Jabalpur, Jabalpur-482009. 16. Bajpai S.D., Jt.GM, 991314, Grey Iron Foundry, Jabalpur-428009. 17. Sahdev S., Jt.GM 991175, Machine Tool Prototype Factory, Ambernath-421502. 18. Gupta Pradip, Director, 991174, Ordnance Factory Cell, G-Block, New Delhi-110011. 19. Govind Mohan, Jt.GM 991184, Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi, Chennai-600054. 20. Jauhari Rajnish, Jt.GM 991315, Machine tool Prototype Factory, Ambernath-421502. 21. Mohanty L., Jt.GM 991179, Ordnance Factory, Dehu Road-412113. 22. Gairola Kanta Prasad, Jt.GM 991180, Ordnance Factory Project, A-1/20 Vikramkhand Gomtinagar, Lucknow-226010. 23. Satyanarayana K, Director 991181, Ordnance Factory Board, 10-A, S.K.Bose Road, Kolkata-1. 24. Narsimhan P., Jt.GM 991176, Ordnance Factory, Trichy-620016. 25. Arya Kailash Nath, Jt.GM 991177, Small Arma Factory, Kanpur-208002. 26. Shanmugam A., Jt.GM 991178, Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi, Chennai-600054. 27. Muthukrishhan V., Jt. GM 991173, Ordnance Factory, Medak, Yeddumailaram-502205 (AP). 28. Mishra S.K., Jt.GM 991247, Ordnance Factory, Itarsi-461122. 29. Nath shailendra 991246, Director, National Academy of Defence Production, Ambajhari, Nagpur-440021. 30. Rao M.S., Director 991247, Ordnance Factories Instt. Of Learning, Avadi, Chennai-600054. 31. Chawla Sanjay, Director 991185, Ordnance Factory Board, 10-A, S.K.Bose Road, Kolkata-1. 32. Garg P.K., Jt.GM 991186, Ordnance Factory, Itarsi-461122. 33. Gopalkrishna R., Jt.GM 991187, Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi, Chennai-600054. 34. Moorthy C. Dhayananda, Director 991199, Regional Marketing Centre, AVHQ, Avadi, Chennai-600054. 35. Karmakar M.M., Jt.GM 991201, Rifle Factory, Ishapore-743144. 36. Deb Animesh, Jt.GM 991293, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur-482009. 37. Dass Ghanshya, Jt.GM 991172, Ordnance Clothing Factory, Shahjehanpur-242002. 38. Dixit H.R., 13 E, 990666, Ordnance Factory Estate, Raipur, Dehradun-248008. 39. Pundir Y.S., Jt.GM 991273, Opto-Electronics Factory, Dehradun-248008. 40. Acharya S.K., Jt.GM 991363, Ordnance Clothing Factory, Avadi, Chennai-600054. 41. Barapatre K.Y., Jt.GM 991251, Ordnance Parachute Factory, Kanpur-208004. Respondents ( By Shri V. S. R. Krishna, Advocate ) OA No.2273/2009 Dibyendu Chawdhuri, Joint General Manager, HVF, Avadi, Chennai-54. Applicant (By Shri Vijay Shankar, Advocate ) Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Department of Defence Production, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi. 2. Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi. 3. Chairman/Directorate General of Ordnance Factories, Ordnance Factories Board, Kolkata-1. 4. The Committee for implementation of CAT Judgments, represented by its Chairman and Director General, Ordnance Factories Board, Kolkata-1. 5. Choudhary N.K., GM 991164, Mint, Alipore, GOI, Kolkata. 6. Mahapatra M.K. Jt.GM, 991163, Ordnance Factory, Dehradun-248008. 7. Rao D.V., Jt.GM 991166, Ordnance Factory, Medak, Yeddumailaram-502205 (AP). 8. Varma Ratheshwar, Jt.GM 991171, Ordnance Factory, Kanpur-208009. 9. Vasishth U., 991294, Jt. Development Commissioner, Kandala SEZ, Gandhinagar (Guj.). 10. Garg Mukul Kumar, Jt.GM, 991300, Ordnance Factory, Kanpur-208009. 11. Ravindran V. 991167, Director, Deptt. of Mines & Steel, New Delhi. 12. Jha R.S., Director, 991168, Ordnance Factory Board, 10-A, S.K.Bose Road, Kolkata-700001. 13. Sivanand N., Jt.GM 991261, Ordnance Factory, Medak, Yeddumailaram-502205 (AP). 14. Kishore Sanjeev, Jt.GM 991169, Ordnance Factory Kanpur-208009. 15. Kumar anil, Jt.GM 991170, Vehicle Factory Jabalpur, Jabalpur-482009. 16. Bajpai S.D., Jt.GM, 991314, Grey Iron Foundry, Jabalpur-428009. 17. Sahdev S., Jt.GM 991175, Machine Tool Prototype Factory, Ambernath-421502. 18. Gupta Pradip, Director, 991174, Ordnance Factory Cell, G-Block, New Delhi-110011. 19. Govind Mohan, Jt.GM 991184, Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi, Chennai-600054. 20. Jauhari Rajnish, Jt.GM 991315, Machine tool Prototype Factory, Ambernath-421502. 21. Mohanty L., Jt.GM 991179, Ordnance Factory, Dehu Road-412113. 22. Gairola Kanta Prasad, Jt.GM 991180, Ordnance Factory Project, A-1/20 Vikramkhand Gomtinagar, Lucknow-226010. 23. Satyanarayana K, Director 991181, Ordnance Factory Board, 10-A, S.K.Bose Road, Kolkata-1. 24. Narsimhan P., Jt.GM 991176, Ordnance Factory, Trichy-620016. 25. Arya Kailash Nath, Jt.GM 991177, Small Arma Factory, Kanpur-208002. 26. Shanmugam A., Jt.GM 991178, Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi, Chennai-600054. 27. Muthukrishhan V., Jt. GM 991173, Ordnance Factory, Medak, Yeddumailaram-502205 (AP). 28. Mishra S.K., Jt.GM 991247, Ordnance Factory, Itarsi-461122. 29. Nath shailendra 991246, Director, National Academy of Defence Production, Ambajhari, Nagpur-440021. 30. Rao M.S., Director 991247, Ordnance Factories Instt. Of Learning, Avadi, Chennai-600054. 31. Chawla Sanjay, Director 991185, Ordnance Factory Board, 10-A, S.K.Bose Road, Kolkata-1. 32. Garg P.K., Jt.GM 991186, Ordnance Factory, Itarsi-461122. 33. Gopalkrishna R., Jt.GM 991187, Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi, Chennai-600054. 34. Moorthy C. Dhayananda, Director 991199, Regional Marketing Centre, AVHQ, Avadi, Chennai-600054. 35. Karmakar M.M., Jt.GM 991201, Rifle Factory, Ishapore-743144. 36. Deb Animesh, Jt.GM 991293, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur-482009. 37. Dass Ghanshya, Jt.GM 991172, Ordnance Clothing Factory, Shahjehanpur-242002. 38. Dixit H.R., 13 E, 990666, Ordnance Factory Estate, Raipur, Dehradun-248008. 39. Pundir Y.S., Jt.GM 991273, Opto-Electronics Factory, Dehradun-248008. 40. Acharya S.K., Jt.GM 991363, Ordnance Clothing Factory, Avadi, Chennai-600054. 41. Barapatre K.Y., Jt.GM 991251, Ordnance Parachute Factory, Kanpur-208004. Respondents ( By Shri V. S. R. Krishna, Advocate ) OA No.3125/2009 Dr. Gopal Dutt Tewari, Joint General Manager, HVF, Avadi, Chennai-54. Applicant (By Shri Vijay Shankar, Advocate ) Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Department of Defence Production, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi. 2. Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi. 3. Chairman/Directorate General of Ordnance Factories, Ordnance Factories Board, Kolkata-1. 4. The Committee for implementation of CAT Judgments, represented by its Chairman and Director General, Ordnance Factories Board, Kolkata-1. 5. Choudhary N.K., GM 991164, Mint, Alipore, GOI, Kolkata. 6. Mahapatra M.K. Jt.GM, 991163, Ordnance Factory, Dehradun-248008. 7. Rao D.V., Jt.GM 991166, Ordnance Factory, Medak, Yeddumailaram-502205 (AP). 8. Varma Ratheshwar, Jt.GM 991171, Ordnance Factory, Kanpur-208009. 9. Vasishth U., 991294, Jt. Development Commissioner, Kandala SEZ, Gandhinagar (Guj.). 10. Garg Mukul Kumar, Jt.GM, 991300, Ordnance Factory, Kanpur-208009. 11. Ravindran V. 991167, Director, Deptt. of Mines & Steel, New Delhi. 12. Jha R.S., Director, 991168, Ordnance Factory Board, 10-A, S.K.Bose Road, Kolkata-700001. 13. Sivanand N., Jt.GM 991261, Ordnance Factory, Medak, Yeddumailaram-502205 (AP). 14. Kishore Sanjeev, Jt.GM 991169, Ordnance Factory Kanpur-208009. 15. Kumar anil, Jt.GM 991170, Vehicle Factory Jabalpur, Jabalpur-482009. 16. Bajpai S.D., Jt.GM, 991314, Grey Iron Foundry, Jabalpur-428009. 17. Sahdev S., Jt.GM 991175, Machine Tool Prototype Factory, Ambernath-421502. 18. Gupta Pradip, Director, 991174, Ordnance Factory Cell, G-Block, New Delhi-110011. 19. Govind Mohan, Jt.GM 991184, Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi, Chennai-600054. 20. Jauhari Rajnish, Jt.GM 991315, Machine tool Prototype Factory, Ambernath-421502. 21. Mohanty L., Jt.GM 991179, Ordnance Factory, Dehu Road-412113. 22. Gairola Kanta Prasad, Jt.GM 991180, Ordnance Factory Project, A-1/20 Vikramkhand Gomtinagar, Lucknow-226010. 23. Satyanarayana K, Director 991181, Ordnance Factory Board, 10-A, S.K.Bose Road, Kolkata-1. 24. Narsimhan P., Jt.GM 991176, Ordnance Factory, Trichy-620016. 25. Arya Kailash Nath, Jt.GM 991177, Small Arma Factory, Kanpur-208002. 26. Shanmugam A., Jt.GM 991178, Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi, Chennai-600054. 27. Muthukrishhan V., Jt. GM 991173, Ordnance Factory, Medak, Yeddumailaram-502205 (AP). 28. Mishra S.K., Jt.GM 991247, Ordnance Factory, Itarsi-461122. 29. Nath shailendra 991246, Director, National Academy of Defence Production, Ambajhari, Nagpur-440021. 30. Rao M.S., Director 991247, Ordnance Factories Instt. Of Learning, Avadi, Chennai-600054. 31. Chawla Sanjay, Director 991185, Ordnance Factory Board, 10-A, S.K.Bose Road, Kolkata-1. 32. Garg P.K., Jt.GM 991186, Ordnance Factory, Itarsi-461122. 33. Gopalkrishna R., Jt.GM 991187, Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi, Chennai-600054. 34. Moorthy C. Dhayananda, Director 991199, Regional Marketing Centre, AVHQ, Avadi, Chennai-600054. 35. Karmakar M.M., Jt.GM 991201, Rifle Factory, Ishapore-743144. 36. Deb Animesh, Jt.GM 991293, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur-482009. 37. Dass Ghanshya, Jt.GM 991172, Ordnance Clothing Factory, Shahjehanpur-242002. 38. Dixit H.R., 13 E, 990666, Ordnance Factory Estate, Raipur, Dehradun-248008. 39. Pundir Y.S., Jt.GM 991273, Opto-Electronics Factory, Dehradun-248008. 40. Acharya S.K., Jt.GM 991363, Ordnance Clothing Factory, Avadi, Chennai-600054. 41. Barapatre K.Y., Jt.GM 991251, Ordnance Parachute Factory, Kanpur-208004. Respondents ( By Shri V. S. R. Krishna, Advocate ) OA No.2351/2009 Pulak Ranjan Mandal S/O Jatindra Nath Mandal, working as Additional General Manager, Metal & Steel Factory, Ichapore, R/O Metal & Steel Factory Estate, P.O. Ichapure-Nawabganj, PS Noapara, Distt. 24-Parganas (North), Pin Code-743144. Applicant (By Shri Padma Kumar S., Advocate ) Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Department of Defence Production, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi-110001. 2. Union Public Service Commission through its Chairman, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi. 3. Ordnance Factories Board, Represented through its Chairman, 10-A, Shaheed Khudiram Bose Road, Kolkata-700001. 4. General Manager, Metal & Steel Factory, P.O. Ichapore-Nawabganj, PS Noapara, Distt. 24 Parganas (North), Pin Code-743144. 5. Works Manager (Administration), Metal & Steel Factory, P.O. Ichapore-Nawabganj, PS Noapara, Distt. 24 Parganas (North), Pin Code-743144. 6. Narendra Kumar, Deputy Director General/Coordination, Ordnance Factories Cell, Block-G, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi-110011. 7. Prabhat Verma, Additional General Manager, Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur (MP), Pin code-482011. 8. Bharat Singh, Additional General Manager, Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur, MP, Pin Code-482011. 9. C.B.S. Markam, Joint General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Khakaria, Jabalpur (MP), Pin-482005. Respondents ( By Shri V. S. R. Krishna for Official Respondents and Shri Anil Singal for Respondent No.6, Advocates ) OA No.2912/2009 V. P. Mungathe, Jt. General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Ambajhari, R/o Qtr. No.10/6, type-V, Ordnance Factory Estate, Ambajhari, Nagpur-440021. Applicant ( By Shri M. G. Burde, Advocate ) Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi. 2. D.G.O.F./Chairman, Ordnance Factory Board, 10-A Auckland Road, Kolkata-700001. 3. Chairman, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi. 4. General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Ambajhari, Nagpur-440021. Respondents ( By Shri V. S. R. Krishna, Advocate ) OA No.2395/2009 1. Prakash Singh, Jt. General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Ambajhari, R/o qtr. No.10/3/1, Type-V, Ordnance Factory Estate, Ambajhari, Nagpur-440021. 2. R. S. Singh, Jt. General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Ambajhari, R/o qtr. No.10/7, Type-V, Ordnance Factory Estate, Ambajhari, Nagpur-440021. Applicants ( By Shri M. G. Burde, Advocate ) Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi. 2. D.G.O.F./Chairman, Ordnance Factory Board, 10-A Auckland Road, Kolkata-700001. 3. Chairman, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi. 4. General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Ambajhari, Nagpur-440021. Respondents ( By Shri V. S. R. Krishna, Advocate ) O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
By this common order, we propose to dispose of six Original Applications, as all the Applications involve common questions of law and facts. Learned counsel representing the parties are ad idem that all these matters need to be disposed of by a common judgment. Brief facts that may, however, need necessary mention, have been extracted from OA No.2274/2009 in the matter of Dr. J. J. B. Prasad v Union of India & Others. In OA No.2351/2009 in the matter of Pulak Ranjan Mandal v Union of India & Others, in which arguments have been addressed by Shri Padma Kumar S., there is an additional argument raised in support of the Application, which, of course, we will deal with as additional argument in the said OA. Before we may refer to the facts in the OA mentioned above, we may mention that all the OAs were pending at different Benches of the Tribunal, i.e., Kolkata, Chennai and Mumbai Benches. All the matters have been transferred to the Principal Bench on applications made on that behalf by either side.
2. Dr. J. J. B. Prasad filed the Original Application at the Chennai Bench calling in question proceedings of the Committee for implementation of CAT Judgments, the 4th respondent arrayed in the OA dated 2.11.2006, and acceptance thereof in proceedings dated 4.2.2008 of the Ordnance Factories Board, the 3rd respondent, and consequential proceedings dated 8.4.2008 of the 3rd respondent in OFB No.401/A/G, and to quash all the above said orders/proceedings and to direct the respondents to make promotions to the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) of the Indian Ordnance Factories Board Service (IOFS) on the basis of the existing seniority list as on 1.1.2008, without revising or altering the seniority list, and pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit.
3. The facts on which the reliefs as indicated above are sought to rest reveal that the applicant is M.Sc. (Physics) and has also done Ph.D in Physics from IIT, Chennai. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the 3rd respondent inviting application for filling up the post of Physicist in the Junior Time Scale (JTS) of the Indian Ordnance Factories Board Service (IOFS), he applied. On the basis of recommendations made by UPSC, the applicant came to be appointed to JTS vide order dated 14.8.1985. He reported for duty on 3.12.1985. There were different disciplines at the entry level of IOFS, i.e., engineers, administrators, chemists, metallurgists, clothing and leather technologies, etc. The discipline of physicist, to which the applicant belongs, was a new cadre and recruitment to the same was made for the first time in 1984, when the applicant applied and was selected. At or about the same time, pursuant to advertisements issued, recruitments came to be made for other disciplines in the IOFS as well. Many such persons joined at or about the same time as the applicant, with few joining earlier and some later. It is the case of the applicant that in accordance with the general principles of seniority contained in the OMs issued by DOP&T, the seniority of direct recruits through different processes of selection by UPSC, would be reckoned on the basis of the date of recommendations made by UPSC. The applicant was recommended on 12.10.1984, and, therefore, his seniority vis-`-vis other direct recruits was fixed with reference to the said date. After completion of four years of service, the applicant was promoted to the Senior Time Scale (STS) in December, 1989. He was later promoted as Deputy General Manager in February, 1998 and in December, 1998 he was promoted to the Junior Administrative Grade (JAG). It is while so promoted and posted at Chennai that the applicant filed the present OA. The next promotion is to the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG), for which the DPC met in January, 2008. The applicant, it is his case, reliably learnt that the OFB had prepared a list of about forty names in which his name also found place, and that the selection to the SAG was made on the basis of seniority which had remained unchanged for over twenty years, eversince the appointment of the applicant. While the applicant was hoping that he would be issued the orders promoting him to the SAG, it came to his notice that a few IOFS officers had made representations to the respondents that since the seniority of IOFS officers in the JTS was under revision pursuant to orders of the Tribunal, it would not be advisable to make further promotions. Acting on the representations aforesaid, the 3rd respondent has kept in abeyance the impending promotions of the applicant and others to the STS. The applicant makes a mention of two significant decisions that came about in the matter of fixation of seniority in STS of IOFS, and the directions that came to be given therein. Inasmuch as, the impugned orders or proceedings are based upon purported compliance of the orders in the two decisions recorded by this Tribunal, it may be appropriate to give in some details the controversy involved in the two Original Applications. The first of the two OAs bearing number 679/1991 came to be filed in the Madras Bench by one S. P. Saxena, joining in the array of parties 47 employees working with him. The prayer made by Saxena in the OA was to set aside the orders of the 1st respondent dated 6.12.1989, 6.4.1990 and 6.4.1991 rejecting his representations for re-fixation of seniority in the STS of the IOFS, with a further prayer to grant him seniority at serial number 21 in the seniority list as on 1.7.1990 below one L. Dorairaj. It was the case of Saxena that he was directly recruited in the Group A post of Assistant Manager/Engineer Production by UPSC vide letter dated 30.4.1983 along with number of other candidates. His appointment was subject to verification of character and antecedents, which was to be done as per the procedure laid down in that regard. It was further the case of the applicant that the offer of appointment after such verification was made to him only on 30.1.1984, whereas in case of others from his batch who had been selected along with him, the said verification had been completed earlier, and they had joined during the year 1983 itself. The next promotional post was in the STS as Works Manager. As per the case set up by the applicant, according to the recruitment rules, the said promotional post was a non-selection one, i.e., promotion was to be made on the basis of seniority subject to fitness for promotion. There was a further condition of eligibility of four years of service in the JTS. The DPC met on 25.3.1987 for recommending promotions to the STS. The committee noted that the recruitment rules provided for a minimum period of four years qualifying service in the feeder grade of JTS for promotion to the STS, and considered all officers who had completed four years qualifying service in the grade, and also such officers who, according to their seniority, though had not completed four years of service in the grade on the date of the DPC, but would be completing four years of service on or before 31.12.1987, i.e., the end of the calendar year. As a result, all other persons recruited along with the applicant in 1983 and who would have completed four years of service on or before on 31.12.1987, came to be considered by the DPC, and the applicant alone, who joined on 20.2.1984 and who would not be completing four years of service as on 31.12.1987, was left out of consideration by the DPC. He was considered by the next DPC that met on 30.9.1988 and was recommended for promotion, whereafter he was promoted to the STS on 3.11.1988. It was the case of the applicant that the seniority fixed by UPSC was sacrosanct and that irrespective of his not completing four years in the feeder post, once his juniors had been promoted, he could not be left out and thus had to be promoted along with his juniors. The plea raised by the applicant prevailed. The OA filed by him was allowed with the following directions:
Accordingly we allow the application with a direction to the respondent to consider the fitness of the applicant for promotion to the Senior Time Scale as on the date when the original DPC met viz. 25.3.1987, if necessary by convening a review DPC. If he is found fit for promotion his name shall be included in the panel prepared by the DPC which met on 25.3.1987 at the appropriate place in accordance with his seniority in the Junior Time Scale. He shall thereafter be deemed to have been promoted to the STS with effect from 20.2.88. His seniority shall thereafter be refixed in the STS as per his position in the promotional panel referred to above. The 3rd respondent, in order to implement the order passed by the Tribunal in OA No.679/1991, conducted a review DPC in the year 1994. There were large number of private respondents in the said OA whose date of promotion and consequent seniority had to be re-fixed in accordance with the directions of the Tribunal. Therefore, on the basis of the review DPC, their dates of promotion underwent minor changes. In this process, the seniority of some individuals, i.e., Narendra Kumar and Prabhat Varma etc., who had not completed the mandatory two year probation when their juniors were considered for STS, was revised, which, in turn led to the said two individuals approaching the Principal Bench of the Tribunal by filing OA Nos.2279 and 2218/1995. This is the second litigation referred to by the applicant. The said OAs came to be allowed by a common order dated 13.1.2000. We may refer to the facts of the said OAs as also the directions that came to be issued by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal. Narendra Kumar had filed OA No.2279/1995, wherein, in addition to the first two official respondents, 15 colleagues of his were also impleaded as party respondents. The applicant challenged orders dated 14.11.1994 and 1.1.1995, wherein his seniority had been downgraded vis-`-vis his juniors. As per the case set up by the applicant, he had appeared in the combined engineering services examination held in the year 1982, and on selection was allotted to the IOFS as an engineer. He was issued the offer of appointment dated 31.3.1984. By a subsequent letter dated 11.7.1985, the time for joining the service was extended by the respondents up to 31.7.1985. The applicant joined on 1.8.1985 in the JTS of IOFS. After completion of four years of service, he was promoted to the STS w.e.f. 11.8.1989. Subsequent to his joining, a seniority list was published on 1.4.1986 placing him at serial no.51. Up to 1990, the seniority lists of officers of the JTS and STS were shown separately and discipline-wise, but from 1.7.1990 all officers technical and non-technical were clubbed together in the seniority list of JTS. This was so in respect of STS also. According to the combined seniority list of 1.7.1990, the seniority of the applicant was shown at serial no.75 above Shri S. K. Singh and below Shri A. K. Tiwari, who were shown at serial nos.76 and 74 respectively. In the seniority list of 1992 circulated on 1.1.1993, the applicant was placed at serial no.103 above S. K. Singh. This inter se seniority was retained in the list of STS as on 1.1.1994. Thereafter, however, the respondents issued the impugned order dated 14.11.1994 giving notional promotion to 26 officers in the grade of STS in the IOFS. Their seniority was also revised. The applicant was not promoted. The new seniority list brought out on 1.1.1995 placed the applicant at serial no.33 and placed his junior, S.K. Singh, at serial no.17. Sixteen other junior officers were also placed above the applicant. The applicant then made reference to OA No.679/1991 filed by S. P. Saxena and the result thereof. He pleaded that it was in pursuance of the judgment of the Tribunal referred to above that the respondents held a review DPC on 4.10.1994 and issued the impugned orders dated 14.11.1994 and 1.1.1995. The plea raised by the applicant was that according to note 4 below rule 27 of the recruitment rules of IOFS whenever a junior is promoted, his senior should also be considered for promotion irrespective of the length of service put in by him, and that this rule was overlooked by the respondents when they did not consider him for promotion in the review DPC of 4.10.1994, as a result of which his seniority had been pushed down below his juniors. The plea of the applicant found favour with the Tribunal and his OA was also allowed. The relevant directions that came to be issued while allowing the OA, read thus:
(i) Hold a fresh Review DPC of 04.10.1994 to consider the applicants in both the OAs for promotion to STS with effect from the date their juniors were promoted.
(ii) Recast the seniority of the applicants in the seniority list of 1.1.1995 vis-`-vis respondent no.3 in OA No.2279/95 and respondent nos. 3&4 in OA No.2218/95 and thereafter assign appropriate places to them as per their original seniority in the JTS.
(iii) The respondents shall also hold a fresh Review DPC of 15.5.1995 to consider the applicants for further promotion to the Junior Administrative Grade from the date their juniors were promoted according to the rules.
4. The applicant after making a mention of the two decisions recorded by the Chennai and the Principal Benches of the Tribunal, further pleads that he has no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down by the Tribunal in both the cases stated above and is really not aggrieved by any of the directions/ observations contained therein, and that his only grievance is that in a belated attempt to implement the directions of the Tribunal referred to above, the 3rd respondent constituted a committee, whose terms of reference were only to implement the directions of the Tribunal, but the committee unnecessarily and unwarrantedly had gone into the entire exercise of refixing the seniority by reviewing the DPCs held during the years 1987, 1988 and 1989 for promotion to the STS in the IOFS, and in doing so, recommended that those promoted in the earlier DPCs would rank senior to those promoted by later DPCs. When the applicant and others who were recruited in the physicist discipline, came to be informed that the committee was going into other areas by reviewing the seniority of STS officers, though this issue did not arise directly or indirectly on account of the judgments of the Tribunal referred to above, they made representations pointing out that the cadre of physicist, being a newly formed one, was not receiving due attention in the matter of career progression of officers. The applicant, in particular, pointed out that for those recruited to the IOFS from other disciplines at or about the same time like him, were promoted to STS in 1988, i.e., ahead of their completing four years in 1989, while in the case of physicist cadre alone, as it was a newly formed one, the DPC was not held in 1988. It was held in 1989 and the applicant and other physicist were granted STS immediately on completion of four years of service. It is pleaded that the seniority of the applicant was being correctly reflected all these twenty years by giving primacy to the date of recommendation of the UPSC, which was earlier in his case, and it on that basis that the seniority and promotions in the STS and JAG continued to be maintained like that. However, the committee constituted by the 3rd respondent, by posing unnecessary issues before it and by considering irrelevant aspects, suggested that the applicant and other physicists having been considered for promotion only in 1989 DPC, would rank en bloc junior to those considered in the 1988 DPC. The applicant and other physicists informed the committee that as it had expanded its jurisdiction by going into issues not covered by the two judgments of the Tribunal, and in that case the committee may also consider the grievance raised by the applicant and others that the DPC in their cases for grant of STS should have been held in 1987/1988 instead of 1989, but the committee appears to have concluded that this issue was not within their terms of reference. The applicant makes a pertinent grievance of the proceedings dated 4.2.2008 recorded by the 3rd respondent, as per which it was informed that based on the recommendations of the committee, the seniority of the officers was being recast. Objections were invited from aggrieved individuals. From the said proceeding, along with which a tentative seniority list was annexed, the applicant found that he had been pushed down to serial no.244, and that many persons from serial no.140 onwards who had been recruited long after him and who were below him in all the seniority lists published during the last twenty years, had been placed above him. It is the case of the applicant that as per his rightful seniority, he should have been placed just below serial no.130, but only on account of the fact that the DPC for promotion to STS was held belatedly in his case, his seniority was sought to be downgraded by about 104 places. Aggrieved thus, the applicant made representation dated 14.2.2008, wherein he inter alia stated that it was wholly unnecessary on the part of the respondent to have undertaken the exercise of revising the seniority. He also pointed out that he had not been made party in any of the OAs, and the judgments, in any case, did not really affect him, but it was the erroneous interpretation given to the judgments by which the terms of reference of the committee were unnecessarily expanded. He also pointed out that it was not proper or legal on the part of the respondents to downgrade his seniority without giving him a show cause notice and giving him an opportunity to explain. The applicant was confident that the 3rd respondent would see reason and give up the proposal of undertaking this unwarranted exercise, but he was shocked to be informed that by the proceedings dated 8/10.4.2008, the respondent had rejected all representations received from aggrieved individuals, including the applicant, by a common order in which it was stated that there was no ground to review the report of the committee and that its recommendation and conclusion were justified. With a view to appreciate the controversy, it would be useful to straightway refer to the order dated 8/10.4.2008 that has been primarily challenged during the course of arguments. The said order is reproduced below in its entirety:
With reference to the officers representation against the OFBs letter even no. dated 04.02.2008 regarding the subject mentioned above, the following clarifications are furnished.
a) The Seniority list in the grade of STS in IOFS as on 01.01.1992 has been revised vide the OFB letter of even no. dated 04.02.2008 as per recommendations of the Review DPCs held during the year 2007 to reconsider the proceedings of the original DPCs for promotion to the grade of STS held during the years 1987, 1988 and 1989.
b) The review DPCs were required to be conducted to implement the Honble CAT (PB), New Delhi, order dated 13.1.2000 in OA Nos.2279/95 and 2218/95 filed by Sh. Narendra Kumar and others where the department was directed to hold a fresh review DPC to consider the applicants for promotion to STS w.e.f. the date their juniors were promoted even if they had not completed years of probation as on the date of the original DPC. The department was further directed to recast the seniority accordingly and hold review DPCs for further promotion to the next higher grade. A copy of the operating part of the Honble CAT judgment dated 13.01.2000 is enclosed.
c) The DOP&T vide Note No.C-162/Estt.(D) dated 28.11.2005 stated that where an officer, not having been considered earlier in the relevant year along with his juniors for promotion for not completing probation, is now required to be considered in terms of CAT order, consideration of his fitness has to be done only through a Review DPC.
d) Since the number of vacancies in each discipline available for promotion to the grade of STS were constant in each of the years of 1987, 1988 and 1989, and since a good number of officers who were hitherto not eligible for consideration for promotion in these DPCs for not completing 2 years of probation, had become eligible for consideration for promotion in the Review DPCs as per the above mentioned CAT directive, some of the officers who were considered in the original DPCs of 1987, 1988 or 1989 have not been considered in the Review DPCs and instead are now being considered in the subsequent DPCs (as reviewed).
e) Again, the DOP&T vide Note No.C-162/Estt.(D) dated 28.11.2005 stated that seniority on promotion in the grade of STS will not be based on UPSC rank in respect of those who were ineligible/not recommended in the first DPC for the batch and were considered only in the next DPC etc. Seniority of the officers has been fixed on the basis of recommendations of the Review DPC in line with DOP&T instructions and Honble CAT directions.
f) Thus the present Revised Seniority List of the officers in the grade of STS as on 01.01.1992 maintains the discipline-wise seniority of officers (irrespective of their date of joining) in their entry grade barring some exceptions where the officers had been found to be unfit for promotion by the DPC on the ground of performance.
g) However, since inter-discipline seniority is not strictly comparable, there are officers of any particular discipline (say Metallurgists) who have been placed as juniors even to those officers of different discipline(s) (say engineers) whose date(s) of recommendation(s) is (are) much later than the former. This is due to differences in the availability of trade-wise vacancies in the grade of STS where due to more number of vacancies in one discipline in the grade of STS officers with a later date of recommendation got promoted to the grade of STS and consequent seniority, whereas due to less number of vacancies in another discipline STS officers even with earlier date of recommendation could get promoted to STS only on a later date and consequently, in spite of having earlier date of recommendation, became junior to those officers of the other discipline who got promoted to STS in the earlier DPC. Thus, in the dovetailed Seniority List officers of same batch of any particular discipline having same date of recommendation have been intercepted by the presence of officers of other discipline(s) having later date(s) of recommendation(s) due to differences in availability of trade-wise vacancies in the grade of STS.
h) It is claimed that no officer in the trade(s) of LT and Physicist was considered in the original DPC of 1987 and 1988. The directions of the Honble Tribunal are to consider a senior in the Review DPC if his junior was considered in the original DPC. Since one of their juniors in the respective disciplines were considered in the original DPC, there is no question of consideration of others in the Review DPCs of 1987 and 1988. This position was also explained to one of the members of the committee who belonged to the Physicist discipline. Similarly, fixation of seniority of officers belonging to CT was done after detailed discussions with the member of the Committee belonging to Civil Trade while fixing the inter-se seniority of different disciplines belonging to the same.
i) It may also be added that as many as 16 officers from the IOFS cadre were included as respondents in the above-mentioned CAT case and that an appeal was filed in the High Court by the respondents which was dismissed by the High Court.
Thus, the above-mentioned representation is disposed off. Insofar as clauses a), b), c), d), e), f), h) and i) as reproduced above, are concerned, the same are not under challenge. It is only clause g) which is under challenge. Perusal of clause g) would reveal that the respondents have taken a decision that inter-discipline seniority is not strictly comparable. It appears that thereafter also, the applicant made representations on 1.5.2008 and 27.11.2008 to the 1st respondent, wherein the discrepancies in the report of the committee and in the conclusion of the 3rd respondent had been highlighted, with no tangible result. It is in these circumstances that he filed the OA before the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal.
5. What may appear from the pleadings as mentioned above, emanating from the OA, the primary grievance of the applicant is that in exercise of implementing the two judgments of this Tribunal, the respondents could not possibly touch upon such issues which were never subject matter of debate and decision by this Tribunal, and that new dimensions added to the case in the purported exercise of compliance of the directions given by this Tribunal are wholly uncalled for and cannot sustain. As may appear from the pleadings, the grievance of the applicant is also that if such matters as have been looked into by the committee, if at all can be gone into, the same can only be done by independent proceedings and not in purported compliance of the orders of the Tribunal.
6. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, respondents have entered appearance and by filing their counter reply, contested the cause of the applicant. Some preliminary objections have been raised, but inasmuch as nothing as regards thereto has been urged during the course of arguments, there would be no need to make a mention of the same. While giving brief history of the case, it is inter alia pleaded that in the matter of promotion and determining the seniority of IOFS officers, especially from JTS to STS during the years 1987 to 1989, there have been several cases filed in various Benches of the Tribunal. As laid down in Appendix-II of IOFS Recruitment Rules, 1972, the minimum qualifying service for being promoted to STS from JTS was four years. In accordance with the said recruitment rules, DPCs were held in the panel years 1987, 1988 and 1989 to consider for promotion to STS all such officers who had completed four years of regular service in JTS. However, the names of those officers who had not completed requisite four years of qualifying service were not empanelled in the said DPCs, although their names appeared in the seniority list of IOFS officers, among those who were considered by the DPCs. Reference is then made to the OA filed by S. P. Saxena and the result thereof. It is pleaded that consequent to the judgment in the said case, it was decided by the respondents to extend the benefits of the directions given by the Tribunal to all other similarly placed IOFS officers, and accordingly, a review DPC was held on 4.4.1994 to consider promotion to STS of officers, including the applicant, who had completed their probation period on the date of original DPC, and as per recommendation of the review DPC, notional promotions in the STS were given to all officers who were found fit irrespective of the requisite qualifying service of four years, vide order dated 12.5.1995. Reference is then made to the OAs that came to be filed in various Benches of the Tribunal. In one of the OAs filed before the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal, i.e., OA No.348/1995, the order dated 12.5.1995 was stayed. Reference is then to the two OAs filed in the Principal Bench and the result thereof, and the order passed by the High Court of Delhi dated 22.4.2002 dismissing the writ petition which came to be filed against the order passed by the Tribunal. The review DPC in compliance of the orders passed by the Principal Bench was finally constituted in 2007. It was to review the proceedings of the DPCs for promotion to the STS held during the panel years 1987, 1988 and 1989. On the basis of recommendations of the review DPC, seniority list of STS as on 1.1.1992 was revised and circulated vide letter dated 8.4.2008. In the meantime, one C. B. S. Markam, an applicant in OA No.2218/1995, moved a contempt petition before the Principal Bench of the Tribunal, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 13.1.2009 granting the respondents four months time to comply with the directions of the Tribunal. It is pleaded that the review DPC for promotion to JAG (OG) has already been held by UPSC, upon which the revised seniority list of JAG (OG) is to be prepared, but due to interim orders passed by different Benches of the Tribunal directing status quo to be maintained in respect of the applicants, the revised seniority list as per the review DPC could not be published. It is then pleaded that the applicant is seeking setting aside of order dated 8.4.2008 vide which the revised seniority list of STS as on 1.1.1992 was published in line with the recommendations of the review DPC held in compliance of the orders passed by this Tribunal in the two OAs referred to above. Para-wise comments of the reply are no different than what has been reflected while giving brief history of the case. We may mention at this stage that the plea taken by the applicant and repeated in number of paras of the OA that in the decisions recorded by the Tribunal there was no issue as regards the DPCs being held earlier or later with regard to different disciplines for promotion to STS on account of difference in the availability of trade-wise vacancies in the grade of STS, has not been specifically denied in the counter reply, even though it has been stated that the present revised seniority list of officers in STS as on 1.1.1992 maintains the discipline-wise seniority of officers irrespective of their date of joining in their entry grade barring some exceptions where the officers had been found to be unfit for promotion by the DPC on the ground of performance. It has also been stated that since inter-discipline seniority is not strictly comparable, there are officers of any particular discipline (say Metallurgists) who have been placed juniors even to those officers of different discipline(s) (say Engineers) whose date(s) is/are much later than the former, which is due to difference in the availability of trade-wise vacancies in the grade of STS where due to more number of vacancies in one discipline in the grade of STS, officers with later dates of recommendation got promoted to the grade of STS and consequent seniority, whereas due to less number of vacancies in another discipline in STS, officers even with earlier date of recommendation could get promoted to STS only on a later date and consequently, in spite of having earlier date of recommendation, became junior to those officers of the other discipline who got promoted to STS in the earlier DPC, and thus, in the dovetailed seniority list officers of same batch of any particular discipline, having same date of recommendation, have been intercepted by the presence of officers of other disciplines having later dates of recommendations due to differences in availability of trade-wise vacancies in the grade of STS. As regards the representations made by the applicant, it is stated that they were duly considered and disposed of.
7. The applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating the stand taken by him in his OA. It is the positive case of the applicant that the committee constituted by the respondents with terms of reference of only to implement the directions contained in the decisions of this Tribunal, has gone into the entire exercise of refixing the seniority of all officers, and such matters as were not even remotely mentioned in the two OAs, commented upon or decided, have been taken into consideration. This, it is stated, could not be done in the purported exercise of implementing the judgments of the Tribunal, and that the respondents could not add any other aspect of their own, and further that the aspect as regards clause g) of the impugned order dated 8/10.4.2008, fully detailed above, is wholly unwarranted.
8. We have heard the learned counsel representing the parties and with their assistance examined the records of the case. We have hereinbefore mentioned in detail the directions given by the Chennai Bench in OA No.679/1991 in the matter of S. P. Saxena, and in OA Nos.2279/1995 and 2218/1995 in the matter of Narendra Kumar & others by the Principal Bench. The Chennai Bench in OA No.679/1991 was dealing with the case of one S. P. Saxena, who was not considered for promotion to the STS w.e.f. March, 1987, whereas his juniors were considered for promotion. Saxena was denied promotion as he had not completed four years of service in JTS, though he was admittedly senior as per ranking of UPSC. The Chennai Bench held the seniority as fixed by UPSC sacrosanct, and irrespective of the fact that he had not completed four years of service in JTS, inasmuch as his juniors were considered for promotion, Saxena could not have been ignored for promotion and thus had to be promoted along with his juniors as per seniority fixed by UPSC. The direction was thus to promote Saxena along with others, some of whom may be junior to him, or may be of his batch, irrespective of Saxena having not completed four years of requisite service for eligibility for promotion to STS. While implementing the judgment in Saxenas case, the department conducted review DPC in 1994 in which two applicants in OA Nos.2218/1995 and 2279/1995, i.e., Narendra Kumar and Prabhat Varma, lost their seniority on the ground that at the time of consideration for promotion, they had not completed their two years probation. Inasmuch as, their seniority was sought to be disturbed in implementing the order of the Chennai Bench, they filed the said two OAs in the Principal Bench. The only plea raised by them was that irrespective of their not completing two years probation period, they could not be ignored in the matter of promotion in preference to their juniors. The directions given by the Tribunal, as mentioned above, were to consider them for promotion, irrespective of their not completing two years of probation. The writ filed against the order of the Tribunal was dismissed by the High Court of Delhi. There is no doubt whatsoever that the judgments passed by the Chennai and the Principal Benches have to be implemented, but what we find from the pleadings and the impugned orders, and in particular order dated 8/10.4.2008, is that the respondents in the guise of implementing the directions of the Tribunal are attempting to recast the seniority by applying certain criteria which was not in the least the subject matter of discussion, consideration and decision in the orders passed by the Tribunal referred to above. We have already mentioned above that the specific plea raised repeatedly by the applicant on that behalf in the body of the OA has not been specifically refuted in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents. It is no doubt true that while passing the order/proceeding dated 4.2.2008 revising the seniority list of officers in the STS as on 1.1.1992, objections were invited from those who may be adversely affected, like the applicant and others. It is also true that the applicant gave his reply and his objections have been rejected vide impugned order dated 8/10.4.2008, but the question that may stare the parties on their face is as to whether such dimensions as mentioned in clause g) of the impugned order dated 8/10.4.2008 could be added in the purported exercise of implementing the judgments of this Tribunal in the OAs decided by the Chennai and the Principal Benches. The answer to the same has to be an emphatic NO. The parties may have variety of arguments for and against the criteria for working out seniority in the grade of STS, but we are not inclined to go into the same at this stage. The respondents, in pure and simple exercise of implementing the judgments of this Tribunal, for which purpose alone a committee came to be constituted, cannot travel beyond anything that might have been directed in the orders passed by this Tribunal from time to time. If at this distance of time another criteria for fixing inter se seniority is to be worked out, the same has to be a subject matter of separate proceedings, which the respondents may do even now if the law may so permit, but surely, such an exercise cannot be undertaken in the guise of implementing the judgments of the Tribunal passed from time to time as mentioned above. Clause g) of the impugned order dated 8/10.4.2008, in our considered view, cannot be given effect to while implementing the judgments of the Tribunal. The respondents are thus directed to work out the seniority strictly as per the parameters fixed by the Chennai and Principal Benches of this Tribunal. If permissible under law, they may deal with the aspect of the case as mentioned in clause g) of the impugned order dated 8/10.4.2008 by separate proceedings. Surely, while undertaking such an exercise, the respondents would always keep in mind as to whether it would be justifiable to do so at this distance of time.
9. Insofar as, OA No.2351/2009 is concerned, Shri Padma Kumar S., contends that the applicant is challenging the very orders passed by the Tribunal, and in particular the order passed by the Principal Bench in OA Nos. 2279/1995 and 2218/1995 filed by Narendra Kumar and Prabhat Varma. The applicant was admittedly a party respondent in the above mentioned OAs. All that is urged by the learned counsel is that he was not properly served. Once, he was a party respondent in the said OAs, he cannot be permitted to challenge the said decision by a separate OA. His remedy, if any, was, if not served properly, to seek setting aside the order by representing it to be a case of ex parte decision, or to challenge the same in a higher judicial forum.
10. With the observations and directions as mentioned above, these Applications are disposed of, leaving, however, the parties to bear their own costs.
( L. K. Joshi ) ( V. K. Bali ) Vice-Chairman (A) Chairman /as/