Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Shrikrishan vs Military Engineer Services (Mes) on 28 March, 2025
1 O.A./051/00901/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH
CIRCUIT BENCH, RANCHI
O.A./051/00901/2024
Date of Order: 28.03.2025
CORAM
HON'LE SHRI KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, MEMBER (A)
HON'BLE SHRI RAJVEER SINGH VERMA, MEMBER (J)
Shrikrishan, MES-471328, ACWE(Contract) aged about 52 years, son of Late
Siya Ram, resident of Headquarter CWE, Ranchi, PO- RIMS, Ranchi & P.S.-
Sadar, District- Ranchi-834009, Aadhar No. 608307255511, Mobile No.
8004464984, E-mail ID: [email protected]
...............Applicant
(By Advocate: Applicant-in-person)
-Versus-
1. The Union of India, through the Director General(Pers.)/E1B, Military
Engineering Services, Engineer-in-Chief's Branch, Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg,
P.O.- Nirman Bhawan, P.S.- South Avenue, District- New Delhi-110011.
2. Deputy Secretary (Works), Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Sena
Bhawan, P.O.- Nirman Bhawan, P.S.-South Avenue, District- New Delhi-110011.
3. The Chief Engineer, Headquarter Central Command, Lucknow, PIN 900450,
C/o 56 APO, .O. & P.S- Lucknow Cantt., District- Lucknow-226002 (UP).
4. The Chief Engineer, Headquarter, Jabalpur Zone, PIN 901124, C/o 56 APO,
Ridge Road, P.O & P.S.- Cantt. Sadar, District- Jabalpur-482001 (M.P.).
5. The Commander Works Engineer, Headquarter, Dipatoli Cantt, Ranchi, Pin-
900200, C/o 56 APO, PO- Dipatoli, P.S.- Sadar, District- Ranchi-834009.,
Jharkhand.
6. The Garrison Engineer, OTA, Gaya (Bihar), Military Engineering Services,
PIN- 900940, C/o 56 APO, P.O. & P.S. - Cantt., District- Gaya-823005, Bihar.
7. Sanjeev Kumar, MES No. 486776 EE (SG)(QS&C) HQ CWE, Ranchi,
Dipatoli Cantt., PIN 900200, C/o 56 APO, S/o Not known, resident of HQ CWE,
Ranchi, Dipatoli Cantt., PO- RIMS, Ranchi P.S.- Sadar, District- Ranchi-834009.
8. Sunil Tiru, MES-510045 AE (QS & C) HQ CWE, Ranchi, Dipatoli Cantt., PIN
900200, C/o 56 APO, S/o Not known, resident at HQ CWE, Ranchi, Dipatoli
Cantt., P.O.- RIMS, Ranchi P.S.- Sadar, District- Ranchi-834009.
2 O.A./051/00901/2024
9. Satyendra Kumar, MES-440590, ACWE(B/R) PIN 900200, C/o 56 APO, S/o
- Not known, resident at HQ CWE, Ranchi, Dipatoli Cantt., PO- RIMS, Ranchi
P.S.- Sadar, District- Ranchi-834009.
...............Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Pravin Kumar Pandey, ASC
Shri Rahul Kumar Das for R-8.
ORDER
(ORAL)
Per Kumar Rajesh Chandra, A.M.: - Applicant has filed this OA seeking the following relief:-
" i) The applicant pray for quashing the letter Sl. No. 71/2024, dated 16.10.2024 (Annexure-8) issued by the Respondent No. 7 in respect of Allocation of duties to the Applicant and respondent no. 8 & 9, he has no authority to issue the same and also violating the letter vide no.
MES/26/2024/EIB dated 13.09.2024 under Sl. No. 01 (g) at remarks Column issued by the respondent no. 1.
ii) The applicant prays for direction to the Commander Works Engineer (CWE), Head Quarter (HQ), Ranchi/Respondent No. 5 for implementation of posting order dated 04.09.2024 (Annexure-1) for the Applicant at Serial No. 17 GE Gaya to CWE, Ranchi as ACWE (Contract) by the Director General (Pers.)/E1B, Military Engineering Services, Engineer-in-Chief's Branch, New Delhi/Respondent No.1.
(iii) The Applicant further prays for direction to the Commander Works Engineer (CWE), Head Quarter (HQ), Ranchi/Respondent No. 5 to comply the letter dated 13.09.2024 (Annexure-4) issued by the Respondent No. 1 for the Respondent No. 7 under Sl. No. 01 (g) stating in the remarks column that " Extension of tenure till June 2025 on children educational grounds. Officer to be utilized for non-sensitive duties only." In spite of above order respondent no. 7 performing Sensitive duty, which is directly violation of order issued by the respondent no. 1 and further direct to the respondent no. 5 to hand over the official charge to the applicant according to order No. 58/2024 letter dated 14.09.2024."
2. In this OA written statement has already been filed by learned counsel for respondents no. 1 to 6 and private respondent no. 8 and 9. Applicant, who is present in person as he has already withdrawn his Vakalatnama from his previous lawyer, has averred that he does not intend to file rejoinder.
3 O.A./051/00901/2024
3. With the consent of the learned counsels and applicant in person this matter has been heard finally at the admission stage itself.
4. The applicant has levelled an allegation that respondent no. 7 has been performing the duty as per the order of respondent no. 5 who is the competent authority to pass an order to respondent no. 7. Respondent no. 7 in turn passed an order of allocation of duties amongst three persons, i.e. respondent no. 8, respondent no. 9 and the applicant. The applicant is aggrieved that all the works should have been assigned to him but respondent no. 8 and 9 have been given some work which was actually in his domain. Secondly, he has also levelled allegation against the respondent no. 7 that he is working on a sensitive post despite the order as per para 69 of the OA which has defined DCWE (Contracts) as a sensitive post despite the fact that an order was issued vide Annexure A/4 dated 13.09.2024 wherein it is mentioned in the remarks column against the name of respondent no. 7 that his tenure is extended till June, 2025 on children education grounds and the officer is to be utilized for non-sensitive duties only.
5. The learned counsel for respondent no. 1 to 6 have taken serious objection to maintainability of this OA stating that the applicant has no locus standi to question the decision of respondent no. 1, respondent no. 5 and respondent no. 7 who are all senior officers and who are working as per the valid lawfully passed orders of posting. He has also produced a document during the course of hearing whereby respondent no. 7 has already been transferred out to Jodhpur Zone on 26.03.2025and hence this grievance of the applicant though without any authority is no longer subsisting. Secondly, he has argued that respondent no. 5 is the competent authority who has passed an order assigning the work to respondent no. 7 and in para 7 of his WS he has clearly taken a stand that the work that was assigned under Commandant Works Engineer, Ranchi is very critical and looking at the quantum of works relating to contractual matters which included monitoring of all contract related court cases, a decision was taken to allocate work to three persons including the applicant. The applicant has no authority to say as to why the 4 O.A./051/00901/2024 allocation of duty has been given to three persons where the applicant also figures. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 to 6 has also averred that it smacks of some ulterior motive on the part of the applicant who wants all the work relating to contract and arbitration be assigned to him alone and he has no authority to question respondent no. 1, respondent no. 5 and respondent no. 7 who are all his superior officers as to how they have taken a decision with regard to posting and allocation of duties.
6. Learned counsel for respondent no. 8 has also filed written statement and he has clearly stated that no relief has been sought against him and he is unnecessarily being made party but he chose to file a reply. He has averred that he is working on the post much before the applicant who joined on the post on 13.09.2024. Since he has made a request to the competent authority for his extension at the present place of posting on account of his daughter's examination he was allowed extension upto 31.03.2025 which is still continuing by the competently authority through a valid lawfully passed order.
7. Respondent no. 9 has also filed his written statement wherein he has also argued on the similar lines that he is working on the post and the duties assigned to him by a valid lawfully passed orders by the competent authority and the applicant who is one of the co- employees has no locus/authority to challenge his posting. His continuing or otherwise is entirely depending upon the decision taken by the superior officers.
8. We have heard the learned counsels for respondents and the applicant and perused the materials available on record.
9. After considering all the facts and arguments in its entirety we come to the following conclusion:-
(i) Respondent no. 7 has already been transferred out so the question whether he is working on a sensitive or non-sensitive post is not an issue at the moment.
5 O.A./051/00901/2024
(ii) Respondent no. 5 is still continuing on his post as per valid lawfully passed orders which is valid at least upto 31.03.2025, i.e. as on date as well (28.03.2025). hence, his continuing on the post can also not been questioned and least of all the applicant has no authority to challenge this order.
(iii) Respondent no. 7 is also working under a valid lawfully passed order by the competent authority and the applicant has no locus or authority to challenge this order.
10. In view of the aforesaid observations, this OA is completely devoid of merit and is fit to be dismissed. The OA is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Rajveer Singh Verma) (Kumar Rajesh Chandra)
Member (J) Member (A)
Srk.