Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Kamal Lachan Gupta vs Delhi Administration Through Its Chief ... on 2 March, 2010
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench TA No.235/2009 New Delhi this the 2nd day of March, 2010. Honble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J) Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) Shri Kamal Lachan Gupta, S/o Shri Ram Kishan Dass, R/o Mazid Mohella, Bahadurgarh, Distt. Rohtak, Haryana. -Applicant (Applicant in person) -Versus- 1. Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary, 5, Sham Nath, Marg, Delhi. 2. Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation, N-36, Connaught Place, New Delhi, through its Secretary. 3. Shri V. Kant, Assistant Manager, D.S.I.D.C., N-36, Connaught Place, New Delhi. 4. Shri Sudhir Sharma, Assistant Manager, DSIDC, New Delhi, New Delhi (now Dy. Manager). 5. Mrs. Chitra Saran, Asstt. Manager, (now Deputy Manager), DSIDC, New Delhi. 6. Shri Vimal Malhotra, Asstt. Manager (now Deputy Manager), DSIDC, New Delhi. 7. Mrs. Ranjana Walia, Assistant Manager, DSIDC, New Delhi. 8. Shri Rakesh Coomer, Assistant Manager, DSIDC, New Delhi. -Respondents (By Advocate : None) O R D E R Honble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J):
Applicant, who has since retired on 31.8.2005 as Deputy Manager, by virtue of this OA seeks correction of his seniority and consequential benefits. The seniority list issued on 22.2.1990 is being assailed.
2. However, after filing the Civil Writ Petition before the High Court of Delhi it stood transferred as TA before this Tribunal. Subsequent development whereby on 31.1.1992 private respondents have been accorded the antedated promotion and were further considered for promotion as Senior Manager was brought as a cause of action in the TA.
3. A brief factual matrix transpires that the applicant who joined as Assistant on 12.7.1973 was promoted as Section Officer on 7.3.1977 under EPI pattern the post was re-designated as Assistant Manager. On 1.9.1978 applicant was reverted to the post of Assistant but a decision was taken by the respondents on 7.11.1979, whereby applicant was regularized from retrospective effect in the pay scale of Rs.650-1200, which was revised to Rs.2000-3500. Respondents 3, 4 and 5 have been served, yet not filed their reply. However, respondents 4, 6 and 8 though served but no representation is made on their behalf and also reply is not filed. Respondent No. 5 had retired and respondent No.7 had expired. Accordingly, those who are not likely to be affected have been deleted from the array of parties. The grievance of applicant is that whereas others have been given antedated promotion by merging various cadres. However, neither the merger was notified nor recruitment rules to operate the seniority have been issued, rather appointment in the grade of Rs.650-1200 was treated as the initial point of seniority. It is stated by applicant in person that those who have been given antedated promotion as Assistant Manager were appointed in the higher grade but their seniority has to be reckoned from the date they have been brought as Assistant Manager, which is anterior in time in case of applicant, yet they have been treated as senior to applicant, as a result of which applicant, who should have been placed at serial No.8 of the seniority list, was placed at serial No.17. Accordingly, his right to be considered for further promotion has been prejudiced.
4. On the other hand, none of the private respondents have filed their reply, as such the averment taken against them by the applicant is deemed to have been admitted. However, respondent No.2 have filed their reply and according to them in the year 1979, 120 designations prevailed in the Corporation, whereby it has been decided to unify them on clubbing and the designations carrying the same pay scales were accordingly clubbed. It is also stated that this has been accepted on 5.3.1980 and merger was notified on 14.7.1980. It is stated that no promotion for the post of Assistant Manager to Deputy Manager was made till 1979 to 1989 and inter-se-seniority was regulated as per the date of initial appointment to the merged grade. It is in this backdrop stated that the applicant, who was appointed as Assistant on 12.7.1973 was re-designated but as one of his juniors was promoted as Section Officer his promotion was also antedated and his seniority would run from 1977. It is further stated that applicant vide letter dated 4.2.1980 was promoted as Assistant Manager only w.e.f. 15.11.1979 and has been placed on probation.
5. Learned counsel states that pre-merger designations were interchangeable and applicant was treated to be designated as Assistant manager w.e.f. 7.3.1997. It is stated that the private respondents who joined the merged scale of Rs.650-960 on 1.9.1973, i.e., before the date of promotion of applicant and being seniors to applicant, the claim of applicable is liable to be rejected.
6. In our considered view, on considering the rival contentions of the parties, once the applicant was placed in the pay scale of Rs.650-960 and was regularized after the reversion orders were cancelled, his seniority should have been reckoned from 1.4.1977 instead of 1979. We also note that the private respondents who have been promoted in the higher grade earlier to the applicant, yet when the merger has not been given statutory effect and also seniority principles were not notified, the initial grade for the purpose of further promotion as Deputy Manager should be seniority in the grade of Assistant Manager in which grade applicant was in position from 1977. The others who were not in the pay scale, antedating their promotion and relegating seniority of applicant, without a show cause notice, is violative of his civil right, which has not been operated in the matter of seniority by observing principles of natural justice and the rules to the effect. As a result of this, applicant, who has since been promoted as Deputy Manager, should have been considered retrospectively for the post of Senior Manager, as others have been promoted in 1996 much before the date of retirement of applicant.
7. In the result, as the cause of action is still quite old, this Writ Petition of 1991, which has been now taken as TA for disposal after a period of about 18 years, most of the private respondents have since retired and few expired, the remaining would not be affected much as applicant who has since retired in case of grant of seniority etc. on consideration for promotion on notional basis would only get enhanced pensionary benefits in the higher post. As such, they would not be likely to be affected by any means. Accordingly, we dispose of this TA with a direction to the respondents to reckon seniority of applicant from the date he has been accorded the pay scale of Rs.650-1200 w.e.f. 1.4.1997 and be accorded seniority over and above private respondents. In such an event, respondents shall consider despite retirement of applicant, his claim for promotion to the higher post of Senior Manger shall be considered by holding a review DPC, which is permissible in law and thereafter if found fit, notionally promote him as Senior Manager before his retirement and accordingly re-determine his pensionary benefits from 2005 with arrears, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
(Dr. Veena Chhotray) (Shanker Raju) Member (A) Member (J) San.