Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Asim Chaudhary S/O Sh. R.N. ... vs Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare on 17 May, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No. 736/2013 Reserved on: 27/05/2013 Pronounced on: 17/07/2013 Honble Mr. Justice Syed Rafat Alam, Chairman Honble Dr. Birendra Kumar Sinha, Member (A) Shri Asim Chaudhary s/o Sh. R.N. Chaudhary, R/o E-725, Mayur Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi 110 009. Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Gautam Jha) Versus 1. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Through Secretary, Nirman Bhawan, Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi. 2. Chief Executive Officer, The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, FDA Bhawan, Kotla Road, New Delhi. 3. The Chairperson, The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, FDA Bhawan, Kotla Road, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Sh. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Ashish Pandey) O R D E R By Dr. Birendra Kumar Sinha, Member (A):
The instant Original Application is directed against the Office Order No.A-19011/10/2010-Admn.FSSAI dated 30.07.2012 (Annexure A-4) declaring his completion of the extended period of deputation on foreign service terms in the FSSAI and relieving him to report to his parent cadre. The OA is further directed against the OM of the respondent dated 18.12.2012 (Annexure A-10) informing the applicant that his premature repatriation has been correctly done in consideration of his fitness or continuance with the organization. Moreover, there was no vacancy at the level of Director FSSAI.
2. The applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):-
a) To issue a writ of mandamus directing Resp No 1 to allow the applicant to complete his deputation in the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India As per the DoPT Rules OM No. 2/99/91-Estt. (P-II) dated 5.1.1994, as amended from time to time, and DoPT OM No. 6/8/2009 dated 17.6.2010, as per the original advertisement.
b) Direct to Resp No. 1 that the period of engagement of the applicant beyond 31.7.2012 till 17.12.2012 should be regularised and be treated as on duty.
c) Direct that the pay and other allowances including statutory deductions and remittances may be paid, considering the financial difficulties being faced by him
d) Direct the Central Government that the post of CEO should be filled at the earliest as he is the legal representation and administrative and financial head under the Food Safety And Standards Act, 2006.
e) Direct that Cost should be awarded to the applicant for this litigation, which has really been thrust upon him by the arbitrary action of the Chairperson and acting CEO of FSSAI.
f) Award compensation to the applicant for the unwarranted Hassel and mental agony caused to him by this litigation.
3. Brief facts of the case of the applicant are that he is an officer in the ONGC holding a permanent lien there. Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), which is a statutory body set up under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, had issued an advertisement (Annexure A-1) inviting applications for filling up one post of Director (Admn.) on deputation. The applicant was selected and appointed to the post of Director (Admn.) on deputation on foreign service terms, initially for a period of one year, extendable to further two years, vide letter dated 22.12.2010 (Annexure A-2). He joined the said post on 02.02.2011. The grievance of the applicant is that though the deputation, as per the terms of the advertisement, was normally for a period of three years, yet on completion of one year, it was extended only upto 30.07.2012 and not upto 01.02.2014. The applicant was relieved of his duties w.e.f. 31.07.2012 (AN) vide order dated 30.07.2012 with a direction to report to his parent organization. On 08.08.2012, the applicant applied for leave upto 24.08.2012 and he was granted the leave w.e.f. 01.08.2012 to 24.08.2012. He was also granted leave from 25.08.2012 to 07.09.2012 and 08.09.2012 to 28.09.2012 (Annexure A-5). In the meantime, the applicant submitted a representation before the Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, praying that he may be allowed to complete his deputation period of three years in FSSSAI as per the advertisement (Annexure A-7). The Assistant Director (Estt. & Admn.), vide its order dated 27.11.2012, informed the applicant that his case had been reviewed after one year of and he had been given extension upto 31.07.2012. Thereafter, it had been the conscious decision of the Chairman & CEO in-charge to repatriate him to his parent office as per the original terms of appointment. The same communication went ahead to further inform that nothing adverse had been found against the applicant (Annexure A-8).
4. It appears from the record that on 07.12.2012, there was a communication from the Under Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, requesting for a review of the deputation of the applicant in the light of the fact that as per the terms of recruitment rules of the parent cadre, the deputation shall be for three years; an advance notice of three months was required to the parent organization and the employee concerned in case of premature repatriation as it was likely to cause hardship to the applicant. As it has already been mentioned, the Assistant Director (Estt. & Admn.) of the respondent-organization informed the applicant vide his communication dated 18.12.2012 that even though no vacancy existed in the post of Director, it was decided to take him on deputation as a Consultant till the end of May, 2013 and on completion of which he shall stand repatriated. On 20.12.2012, an Office Order was issued taking the applicant as Consultant in PB-4 (Rs.37400-67000) plus Grade Pay of Rs. 8700/- w.e.f. 18.12.2012 upto 31.05.2013. He was asked to assist in the Kumbh Mela Operation.
5. On 21.12.2012, the applicant submitted another representation to the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent organization On 24.12.2012, the applicant was further informed that the offer made vide communication dated 18.12.2012 was based on compassionate ground only and he had joined the new assignment in the same capacity. The applicant was, however, given an option to intimate in case the terms were not acceptable to him within 48 hours. It had been clearly spelt out in the communication under consideration that his deputation as Director (Admn.) shall not be continued w.e.f. 31.07.2012; no regularization was possible when he was questioning the terms of appointment as Consultant; and no salary could be released unless he completed the month of December. The lending organization was also informed regarding the decision to relieve the applicant w.e.f. 31.07.2012 and the subsequent decision to engage him as a Consultant for the purpose of a specific job to assist in the Kumbh Mela Operation. The applicant was granted leave w.e.f. 01.08.2012 to 30.09.2012 for two months prior to his joining the parent department as per the competence of the borrowing department. He subsequently did not join the parent department and kept on submitting applications for leave.
6. The ground, which the applicant has adopted to spell out, is primarily based upon the consideration that a period of three years has been prescribed for deputation in the advertisement and there was no mention of any review of deputation to be done at the end of first year. However, contrary to this, he was given an extension for six months only i.e. upto 30.07.2012 even for which there had been no mention in the advertisement. In the second place, the order repatriating the applicant prematurely is arbitrary as no reasons have been assigned for the same. In the third place, the applicant was being repatriated despite the fact that nothing adverse had been found against him which is against the spirit of judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India through Government of Pondicherry and Another versus V. Ramakrishnan and Others [2005 (8) SCC 394] which provides that a deputation is for a specific terms and it cannot be curtailed except on the ground of unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance. In the fourth place, the applicant submits that in anticipation of a tenure of eight months, he had moved his family to Delhi and his premature repatriation would cause great hardship to him. In the fifth place, the applicant question the authority of the Chairman to repatriate him which rests only with the Chief Executive Officer. In the sixth place, when there is no post of Consultant in the respondent organization, the respondents have clearly erred by appointing him against that post. Moreover, the action of the respondents also smacks of bias because the advertisement issued by the respondent organization, appointment letter issued to the applicant vide OM dated 22.12.2010 and the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India through Government of Pondicherry and Another versus V. Ramakrishnan and Others (supra) clearly provides that once a person is selected on deputation for a particular period, the fixed period of deputation shall be allowed to run unless he is found unsuitable or his performance is found to be unsatisfactory. The applicant has further challenged the statement of the respondents that there was no vacancy. The applicant questions the decision of the respondents appointing him as Consultant when there was no vacancy in the post of Director (Admn.). The applicant further alleges that it smacks of bias and malafide.
7. Per contra, the respondents have entered appearance and filed their counter affidavit questioning the maintainability of the Original Application on account of suppression of material facts by the applicant and making attempts to mislead the Tribunal. The respondents have further raised an objection that the applicant has no locus standi to file the present Application as it is a settled position of law that a person who come on deputation has no vested right to remain with the host organization and claim extension or regularization of service while working on deputation.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that admittedly the applicant had been brought on deputation to FSSAI as Director on deputation basis on 02.02.2011. However, the post of Director (Admn.) subsequently merged with another post of Director (Surveillance) and there was no post of Director in existence thereafter. The respondents, therefore, have no choice but to terminate the applicants deputation. However, recognizing the personal hardship involved, the respondents had appointed him as a Consultant in the same organization for a period of six months and he was relieved on 31.07.2012. This measure was necessary as the applicant could not have been continued against the post of Director (Admn.) which had become extinct on account of merger of the post and, therefore, had to be adjusted as a Consultant. The applicant did not protest at that point of time and elected to join as a Consultant. He was relieved w.e.f. 31.07.2012. However, he requested for grant of ten days leave for joining the new place which was duly sanctioned. On expiry of this leave, he further requested for leave upto 24.08.2012 on the ground of pressing family requirements and again utpo 07.09.2012 on the ground of the sever lung infection of his mother and again for three weeks on ground of mothers illness. As per the provisions (Appendix-5) of 7.6 (c)(iii) of the Fundamental Rules, the borrowing organization is precluded from granting leave beyond two months. He was, therefore, granted leave from 01.08.2012 to 30.09.2012 with a direction to the applicant to report to his parent cadre after the expiry of the leave. The applicant started submitting representations to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare questioning the appointment as a Consultant while he had never protested when he was with the host organization. He has been continued on deputation on the basis of an interim order. His conduct amounts to abuse of the judicial process. It stands uncontroverted that the decision to terminate his deputation on completion of one year and to repatriate him to his parent cadre was a conscious decision necessitated by the fact that there was no post on which he could have continued. Still the decision to employ him as a Consultant was purely in the interest of the applicant. The learned counsel for the respondents strongly argued that the termination order of the applicant and his appointment as a Consultant had been duly sanctioned by the competent authority and no dispute could be raised over this matter regarding the competence. The respondents have further argued that continuance of deputation is not a matter of right and the borrowing organization is quite competent to take a decision of its termination. The decision to repatriate the applicant had been taken way back in February, 2012. As per Section 16 of the Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006, the Chairperson is the Head of Food Authority who had also been appointed by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare to hold additional charge of the Chief Executive Officer w.e.f. 20.07.2012 till the return of CEO from foreign training. It is not the concern of the applicant as to how many posts are vacant in the organization; which post should be filled up how, is a matter of the recruitment rules and the judgment of the organization. However, when the applicant accepted the appointment as Consultant, he lost all his rights on the earlier appointment as soon as he joined the post of Consultant.
9. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the rival parties, the documents adduced by them and the oral submissions of their respective counsels. On the basis thereof, following issues emerge for our consideration:-
Whether the advertisement and offer of deputation implies a compulsory period of three years or whether it can be construed to 1+2 and liable for repatriation on completion of first year?
Whether the borrowing organization was right to appoint the applicant against non-existing post of Consultant?
Whether the act of repatriation is marred by the fact that no valid speaking reasons have been assigned for the same and there was nothing adverse against the applicant?
Whether the impugned order of the respondent is liable to be cancelled on account of hardship suffered by the family of the applicant, as claimed by him?
Whether the applicant has come to this Tribunal with his hands clean?
What relief, if any, can be granted to the applicant?
10. Insofar as the first issue is concerned, the advertisement made by the FSSAI spells out under provision 5 as under:-
5. Period of Deputation: The tenure of deputation will normally be 3 years. The period of deputation including the period of deputation in another ex-cadre post held immediately preceding this appointment in the same or other organization/department of the Central Government shall, however, ordinarily not exceed 5 years. The terms and conditions of deputation will be regularized according to the orders contained in the Government of India, DoPTs OM No.2/29/91-Estt (P.II) dated 5th January, 1994 as amended from time to time. The O.M. dated 05.01.1994 of the DoPT has consolidated various instructions/orders that have been issued from time to time on the subject of deputation. Relevant provisions are reproduced hereunder:-
8. Tenure of deputation/foreign service 8.1. The period of deputation/foreign service shall be subject to a maximum of three years in all cases except for those posts where a longer period of tenure is prescribed in the Recruitment Rules.
8.2. The Administrative Ministry/borrowing organization may grant extension beyond this limit upto one year after obtaining orders of their Secretary (in the Central Govt. and Chief Secretary in the State Govt.). Equivalent level officer in other cases where such extension is considered in public interest. Provision 9 provides for premature reversion of deputationists to their parent cadre, which reads thus:-
9. Premature reversion of deputationist to parent cadre.
Normally, when an employee is appointed on deputation/foreign service, his services are placed at the disposal of the parent Ministry/Department at the end of the tenure. However, as an when a situation arises for premature reversion to the parent cadre of the deputationist, his services could be so returned after giving advance intimation of reasonable period of the lending Ministry/Department and the employee concerned.
11. However, this O.M. does not specify any condition for premature reversion of the deputationist to his parent cadre. It merely states that the services of the deputationst are placed under the disposal of the parent Ministry/Department at the end of the tenure. Where situation of premature retirement arises, his services could be placed at the disposal of the parent Ministry/Department after having given the advance intimation with a reasonable period of time. What would have been a reasonable period of time is also not defined. The appointment letter of the applicant dated 22.12.2010 provides:-
2. Shri Asim Chaudhary has been selected for the post of Director (Administration) in the Pay Band 4 of Rs.37400-67000 with Grade Pay of Rs.8700 in the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India on deputation basis, on foreign service terms, initially for a period of one year, extendable to further two years. Other terms and conditions for the aforesaid deputation would be issued in terms of extant orders of Government of India in this regard, in consultation with the lending Authority.
12. Here we feel that the term of deputation of a deputationist has to be considered conjointly as any of these three documents, if considered in part or individual basis would not complete the picture. While OM of DoP&T dated 05.01.1994 provide the overarching framework within which the deputation is to be made, the advertisement mentions the conditions. However, it is the letter of appointment on deputation which really provides the terms and conditions under which the tenure of the deputationist will be governed. Para No.2 of the appointment letter of the applicant, reproduced above, makes it clear that the deputation is on two parts initial deputation is for one year extendable by a further period of two years. The learned counsel for the applicant has sought to argue that the deputation was for a period of three years and the period of one year was only to be used for extension. The crux of his argument was that this would be in consonance with the OM dated 05.01.1994 and that of the advertisement, both of which provide that the tenure of deputation is for three years. However, here we are compelled to ask ourselves as to why the period of one year has been provided in the letter of offer sent to the applicant. A plain meaning of the word would construe that the deputation was initially for a period of one year and on completion of one year it could be extended for a further period of two years. Here, the word initial had been used to denote that the deputation is in two parts i.e. 1 + 2. It is also pertinent to ask ourselves as to why this initial period has been provided. This is because it would provide the host organization sufficient opportunity to watch the conduct of the applicant and to take note of the changes that have taken during this period. At the end of the period of one year, the borrowing organization will take a stock of the situation or review, and the period of extension of two years would be given only if the output of the applicant is satisfactory where the organizational structure continues to be the same. However, where it is found that either of the above conditions has been changed, the deputation is likely to be brought to an end or terminated.
13. Another question that we are compelled to ask ourselves is that whether there is any contradiction between this interpretation, the circular and the advertisement. It is important to note here that each borrowing organization will have its own requirements, job profiles and it cannot be expected that all these will be identically the same in respect of all the organizations that choose to induct persons on deputation. The borrowing organizations will have to frame their own requirements. Here also, the over all period of deputation is for three years. However, this period has been spelt into two parts i.e. 1 + 2. This is within the overall framework of OM dated 05.01.1994 and one fails to see any contradiction amongst the three. Therefore, this question is answered against the applicant. Simply put, as the deputation has two sub-sects one being for initial period of one year and after which presumably there will be a stock checking following which a longer period of two years would be awarded. However, the extension of two yeas following the term of one year is not automatic and is subject to fulfillments of certain conditions.
14. In the case of Union of India through Government of Pondicherry and Another versus V. Ramakrishnan and Others (supra) relief upon by the applicant, the first respondent had been appointed as Chief Engineer in the Public Works Department, Government of Pondicherry on short-term deputation/ temporary basis pending regular selection of the incumbent by the UPSC. However, subsequently, one R Sundar Raju (appellant in the connected appeal) a Superintending Engineer holding current charge of the post of Chief Engineer filed an application questioning the deputation of the first respondent. It was held that R Sundar Raju was not eligible to hold the post of Chief Engineer as he did not fulfil the eligibility criteria. Subsequently, draft rules were framed altering the eligibility criteria and reducing the experience from 5 years to 3 years as a consequence of which R Sundar Raju was promoted on ad hoc basis. The Honble Supreme held as under:-
32. Ordinarily, a deputationist has no legal right to continue in the post. A deputationist indisputably has no right to be absorbed in the post to which he is deputed. However, there is no bar thereto as well. It may be true that when deputation does not result in absorption in the service to which an officer is deputed, no recruitment in its true import and significance takes place as he is continued to be a member of the parent service. When the tenure of deputation is specified, despite a deputationist not having an indefeasible right to hold the said post, ordinarily the term of deputation should not be curtailed except on such just grounds as, for example, unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance. But, even where the tenure is not specified, an order of reversion can be questioned when the same is mala fide. An action taken in a post haste manner also indicates malice. Here it is to be noted that the facts of the two cases are very different as it is not the eligibility of the applicant to hold a higher post, which is in question. What is in question here is that since the post on which the applicant had been brought on deputation has become extinct on account of merger and, therefore, he had to be repatriated.
15. In the case of Sumer Singh & Others versus State of Haryana & Others [CWP No.11960/2012 decided by the Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana on 25.04.2013, the petitioners were persons who were taken on deputation with the State Transport Corporation and were subsequently reverted prematurely. They challenged this decision of their right of natural justice getting violated. The Honble High Court considered this matter and held as under:-
9. The next issue would be as regards the requirement on the part of the respondents to have adhered to the principles of natural justice while issuing the impugned orders. It is by now well settled that the principles of natural justice cannot be applied in a strait-jacket formula. Their application depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. To sustain the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the petitioners would require to establish that they were prejudiced on account of non-issuance of a notice or the non-grant of opportunity of personal hearing prior to the issuance of the impugned order calling upon them to join back on their substantive post. In the facts of the present case, as the petitioners had never been validly appointed to the post of Conductors/Drivers, no right came to vest in them to continue on such post. There would be no requirement of observance of the principles of natural justice prior to taking a decision calling upon the petitioners to join back on their substantive posts. Still further, the impugned orders did not entail any adverse civil consequences inasmuch as the petitioners while having been adjusted as Drivers/Conductors on a purely temporary basis had continued to draw the pay scale as admissible on the substantive post that they had held being members of the Workshop Staff. While taking such view, I would draw support from a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Punjab State Electricity Board and another v. Baldev Singh, MANU/SC/1050/1998 : 1998 (5) SCC 450, wherein it was held in the following terms:
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and examining the materials on record we have no hesitation to hold that in the facts and circumstances of the case the question of giving an opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff before passing the order dated 8.1.1981 does not arise. Since the plaintiff's appointment/promotion to the post of Assistant Lineman was purely on ad hoc basis and the higher authorities directed to discontinue such ad hoc appointment, the competent authority passed the impugned order posting the plaintiff against his substantive post of Charge I Mate. The plaintiff had not acquired any right to the post of Assistant Lineman and further, the impugned order dated 8.1.1981 cannot be held to be penal in nature.
In that view of the matter, the question of giving an opportunity of hearing does not arise. The lower appellate court as well as the High Court committed serious error in interfering with the judgment of the trial Court. In conclusion of the above discussion, we hold that the action of the respondent-organization does not violate the terms of the advertisement or the offer of deputation. To the contrary, it has been occasioned by compelling circumstances. Hence, this issue is decided against the applicant.
16. Insofar as the second issue is concerned, it is an agreed position that the post of Director (Admn.) did not exist as a consequence of merger that has been discussed while dealing with the previous issue. It is also equally admitted that the appointment of the applicant by deputation has been made against the post of Director (Admn.). As the post did not exist, the borrowing organization had no option but to repatriate the applicant to his parent organization. The applicant submitted representation against this to the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare and there was a reference from the same to the respondent organization. Hence, purely as a measure of compassion and in order to help the applicant, the respondent organization posted him on the post of Consultant for a period of six months so that he could tide over the crisis. It is an accepted practice that a temporary post of Consultant can be created to take care of such situation where regular post does not exist. We find it strange that the applicant could have protested against this posting as a Consultant at that point of time but he did not do so and has instead waited. The acceptance of the offer of appointment as Consultant by the applicant and his subsequently joining the said post amounts to estoppel by acquiesce and the applicant at this point of time cannot turn about and challenge the same as being something against the rules. It is not that the applicant was not aware of the facts at that point of time. Therefore, it was a deliberate decision which cannot be challenged at this point of time. The applicant cannot gloss over the fact that it was he who had submitted representation for his retention and there was a directive from the Under Secretary to the Government of India vide OM dated 07.12.2012 to reconsider the case of the applicant. Relevant part of the letter reads as under:-
2. The period of deputation in the advertisement for the post of Director (Administration) in FSSAI(, against which Shri Asim Choudhary applied and was released by the lending organization, was three years. In this connection, attention is invited to DoPTs O.M. dated 25.2.2009 (copy enclosed), which envisages that the period of deputation/foreign service shall be as per the RRs of the ex-cadre post or 3 years in case no tenure regulations exist for the ex-cadre post. Further para 9 of DoPTs OM dated 17.6.2010 (Coy enclosed) regarding guidelines for premature reversion of deputation to parent cadre, provides that normally, when an employee is appointed on deputation/foreign service, his services are placed at the disposal of the parent Ministry/ Department at the end of the tenure. However, as and when a situation arises for premature reversion to the parent cadre of the deputationist, his services could be so returned after giving an advance notice of at least three months to the lending Ministry/Department and the employees concerned. In view of our above discussion, this issue is decided against the applicant.
17. Insofar as issue no.3 is concerned, one finds that consequent to the review of the deputation of the applicant at the end of the first year for continuation, it was decided to repatriate him. However, in view of the submission made by the applicant including to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare pleading hardship, it was decided to give him an extension of six months against the post of Consultant. The above letter dated 18.12.2012 provides:
(i) Your fresh deputation will commence from your date of joining till the end of May, 2013. There will be no regularization of the period from your date of repatriation till the date of joining.
(ii) You will be relieved on 31/05/2013 (AN) and no further extension of deputation will be given. Your appointment order will carry your relief order w.e.f. 31/5/2013 (AN). No further order for your relief will be required. This letter clearly explains why the repatriation had to be taken place by recording that there was nothing adverse in the conduct of the applicant so as to warrant a premature repatriation. The letter under consideration is clear and unambiguous. We find that it is not a non-speaking order but is a well reasoned order which cannot be assailed at this point of time. Hence, this issue is also decided against the applicant.
18. Insofar as fourth issue is concerned, the applicant has pleaded hardship on the ground that he has shifted his family to Delhi for education of his children and treatment of his aged mother. However, no evidence has been filed to support this contention. Still, the counter has not at any time refuted the claim of the applicant of hardship. For that matter, most transfers in the middle level involve hardship. Transfers involve dislocation, which necessarily lead to hardship. Going by this logic, no transfer would take place unless the parties were to consent to it. On the other hand, the Honble Supreme Court in a number of decisions has held that transfer is a necessary incident of service. Where there is a clash between the two, the issue is to be weighed on its own merit. There is nothing on record to substantiate that in the instant case the cause of hardship transcends the necessity of transfer. Hence, we find no merit in it and this issue is also decided against the applicant.
19. Insofar as issue no. 5 is concerned, we are constrained to pass observation on the conduct of the applicant. We find it quite untruthful and perfidious right through. It has already been noted that propriety demanded that if the applicant was not in agreement to join the post of Consultant, he could have refused right then and challenged the decision of the respondent organization. Having elected not to do so and joined the post of Consultant and having served there for a period of six months, he was relieved to report to his parent organization. As stated earlier, the applicant took leave on a number of occasions and kept on extending the same. In the meantime, he has come in challenge to the orders on a host of the issues as have been detailed within. Though it is an undisputed right of every person aggrieved with any order of the administrative organization, there has to be an honour and element of truthfulness which we find distinctly lacking in the applicant. Therefore, we are constrained to hold the applicant as a vexatious litigant, untruthful and perfidious in his conduct. We would have also been tempted to impose cost on the applicant for abusing the process of law and wasting the previous time of the Tribunal with misleading averments, but we have elected not to do so in consideration of the fact that hardship has been pleaded by him and the cost would be a punishment to his family as well. However, his conduct does not escape our notice and needs to be put forth plainly on papers.
20. Now, we take the issue as to what relief, if any, can be provided to the applicant. In consideration of the above issues being held against the applicant, we find no merit in this OA and are of the considered opinion that no relief can be provided to the applicant at this point of time.
21. In the result, the Original Application fails and is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.
(Dr. Birendra Kumar Sinha) (Syed Rafat Alam)
Member (A) Chairman
/naresh/