Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Diwakar Mishra S/O Shri Kashi Nath ... vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 27 January, 2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A. No.060/00021/2017 Date of decision: 27.01.2017
CORAM: HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J).
HONBLE MRS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER (A).
1. Diwakar Mishra S/o Shri Kashi Nath Mishra, age 36 years, Ticket No.1172 (Apprentice Batch-40), Personnel No.000702, Machinist (HS-I), R/o House No.1582 (G.F.), Sector 29B, Chandigarh.
2. Manoj Kumar S/o Late Shri Narayan Lal Verma, Ticket No.1168 (Apprentice Batch-40), Personnel No.000698, Machinist (HS-I), R/o House No.639 (G.F.), Sector 29A, Chandigarh.
3. Kapil Verma, S/. Shri Hari Singh, Ticket No.1197 (Apprentice Batch-41), Personnel No.000000727, Machinist (HS-I), R/o House No.1586-B, Sector-29B, Chandigarh.
4. Brijesh Kumar So Shri Ram Prasad, Ticket No.1182, (Apprentice Batch-40), Personnel No.000712, Machinist (HS-I), R/o House No.649A, Sector 29A, Chandigarh.
5. Dharam Singh S/o Shri Pal Singh, Ticket No.1181, (Apprentice Batch-40), Personnel No.000711, General Fitter, R/o House No.568, Sector 29A, Chandigarh.
6. Sushant Kumar S/o Shri Partap Chand Sharma, Ticket No.000719, (Apprentice Batch-38), Personnel No.000719, Fitter Electric, R/o House No.362, Phase-I, Mohali (Punjab).
APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi.
2. The Director General of Ordnance Factories, Ordnance Factory Board, Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence, 10-A, Shahid Kshudiram Bore Road, Kolkatta 700001.
3. Senior General Manager, Ordnance Cable Factory, Plot No.183, Industrial Area Phase-I, Chandigarh.
4. Joint General Manager, Administration, Ordnance Cable Factory, Plot No.183, Industrial Area Phase-I, Chandigarh.
5. Assistant Works Manager (Administration), Ordnance Cable Factory, Plot No.183, Industrial Area Phase-I, Chandigarh.
RESPONDENTS
Present: Sh. Rajeev Anand, counsel for the applicants.
ORDER (Oral)
HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J):-
1. The present O.A. has been filed by the applicants mainly seeking the following relief(s):-
8(i) Quash the action of the respondents authorities, who have failed to act upon their conceded and admitted position that the seniority of the applicant and other personnel has to be fixed as per the instructions 15/20.10.1999 (Annexure A-5) and 15/17.12.2003 (Annexure A-6) i.e. based on their merit in the NCTVT Test and not on the basis of date of joining, as affirmed before this Tribunal in OA No.513/CH/2012 titled as Vinod Kumar Vs. UOI & Others decided on 02.12.2014 (Annexure A-8), wherein, it has categorically been the stand of the respondents that the revised seniority list of General Trades for year 2002 to 2014 has been made/revised for the categories of Semi-skilled, Skilled and Highly skilled-II and Highly Skilled-I, as per above instructions but benefit is denied and deprived to the applicants.
(ii) Direct the respondents to act upon the Legal Notice dated 09.08.2016 (Annexure A-9) and take necessary action of revision of the seniority of the applicants based on the NCTVT examination batch no. as criteria for maintaining the seniority of Ex-trade Apprentices and the merit of particular NCTVT examination as criteria for seniority for that batch, which without any logical, justification and reasoning has been deprived to the applicants and for further directions for the grant of all consequential benefits, alongwith all arrears entitled to each applicant on correct revision of their seniority.
2. On commencement of hearing, learned counsel for the applicants fairly submitted that before approaching this Court, applicants have got served legal notice dated 09.8.2016 (Annexure A-9) upon the respondents, requesting them to correct their seniority based upon the ratio laid down in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs. UOI & Others, O.A. No.513/CH/2012 decided on 02.12.2014, but the same has not yet been decided. He, therefore, made a prayer at the Bar that applicants would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondents to decide their representation, within a time bound manner.
3. Issue notice to the respondents. Sh. Ram Lal Gupta, Sr. Standing Counsel for Govt. of India, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and does not object to prayer of the applicants for deciding their legal notice. He, however, prayed that at least two months time may be granted to the respondents to do the needful.
4. Considering ad-idem between the parties, the present O.A. is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority amongst the respondents to take a view on the legal notice dated 09.8.2016 (Annexure A-9) of the applicants by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with rules. While deciding legal notice, the respondents shall also consider the ratio laid down by this Tribunal in the case of Vinod Kumar (Supra). Order so passed be duly communicated to the applicants.
5. Disposal of this O.A. in above terms may not be construed as an expression of any opinion on the merits of the case.
(RAJWANT SANDHU) (SANJEEV KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Date: 27.01.2017.
Place: Chandigarh.
`KR
3
O.A. No.060/00021/2017