Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mrs. Surekha Soni vs Union Of India Through on 11 September, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi O.A.No.3749/2011 Order Reserved on: 21.05.2013 Order pronounced on: 11.09.2013 Honble Shri V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J) Honble Shri V. N. Gaur, Member (A) Mrs. Surekha Soni W/o Shri Anil Soni R/o A-10, South Extension Part-I New Delhi 110 049. Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Yogesh Sharma) Versus Union of India through The Secretary Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation Govt. of India Sardar Patel Bhawan Sansad Marg New Delhi 110 001. The Director Bureau Police Research & Development Ministry of Home CGO Complex, Lodi Road New Delhi. The Director National Crime Records Bureau Ministry of Home R.K.Puram New Delhi. The Secretary Department of Personnel & Training Govt. of India North Block New Delhi 110 001. Respondents (By Advocate: Shri A.K.Singh) O R D E R By V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J):
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the applicant joined the service of Respondent No.2 (Bureau of Police Research and Development) as Statistical Assistant on 17.01.1986, on her selection through the Staff Selection Commission. In the year 1987, the Statistical Section of Respondent No.2 was merged with the staff of Respondent No.3 (National Crime Records Bureau).
2. On 6.05.1991, the post of Statistical Assistant wherein the applicant is working was re-designated as Data Processing Assistant Grade `A [DPA Gr.`A) and in the year 1996, the applicant was promoted as Statistical Investigator in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3200 (pre-revised) [Rs.6500-10500 (revised)]. Again w.e.f. 11.12.1996, the said post of Statistical Investigator has been re-designated as Data Processing Assistant Gr. `B [hereinafter called DPA Gr.`B].
3. It is submitted that in pursuance of the recommendations of the 5th CPC, and in consultation with the Department of Personnel & Training, Department of Expenditure and various other Ministries and Departments, the Subordinate Statistical Service (SSS) was constituted with the following grades:
1. Statistical Investigator Grade I Rs.7450-225-11500
2. Statistical Investigator Grade II Rs.6500-200-10500
3. Statistical Investigator Grade III Rs.5500-175 - 9000
4. Statistical Investigator Grade IV Rs.5000-150 - 8000
4. When the respondents, though the applicant is discharging similar functions to that of the various categories of posts which were included in the Subordinate Statistical Service, have not included the applicants post, i.e., DPA Grade `B into the Subordinate Statistical Service, the applicant through Respondent No.3 made representations for the same.
5. The 1st Respondent though initially sought various clarifications from the 3rd Respondent, in this regard, but finally vide the Office Memorandum dated 12.11.2010 (Annexure A17), stated that similarly situated persons who are working as Data Processing Assistants Grs.III and II employed in the Data Processing Division (DPD) and Survey Design and Research Design (SDRD) of National Sample Survey Organization, under Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, i.e., the Respondent No.1, have filed OA No.767/2009 seeking for their inclusion in Subordinate Statistical Service, and though the said OA was originally allowed by order dated 17.10.2009, but on filing a Writ Petition in the Honble High Court of Delhi, the said order was set aside and the OA was restored for fresh adjudication, and that unless final orders are passed in the said OA, it is not possible to include the post of the applicant into SSS.
6. The respondents vide their counter to the OA, while denying the OA claim, inter alia, submitted that this Tribunal vide its order dated 25.08.2011 dismissed the said OA No.767/2009. It is further submitted that the Review Application No.393/2011, filed by the applicants therein, was also dismissed by order dated 01.12.2011. Accordingly, the respondents submit that since the applicant in this OA is also similarly situated and sought for an identical direction in identical circumstances, the present OA is also liable to be dismissed.
7. Heard Shri Yogesh Sharma, the learned counsel for the applicant and Shri A.K.Singh, the learned counsel for the respondents and have been through the pleadings on record.
8. Shri Yogesh Sharma, the learned counsel for the applicant, distinguished the case of the applicant from that of the applicants in OA No.767/2009, inter alia, by raising the following grounds:
the duties and responsibilities of the applicant, who originally appointed as Statistical Assistant and later promoted as Statistical Investigator, are different from that of the duties and responsibilities of Data Processing Assistants Grade II and III, who are the applicants in OA No.767/2009.
The applicant has not taken any additional service benefits like the applicants in OA No.767/2009.
9. We have perused the order of this Tribunal dated 25.08.2011 in OA No.767/2009, wherein the following specific issues were framed for consideration:
i) Are the functions performed by the applicants essentially/predominantly statistical in character?
ii) Does the grant of benefits to them as EDP personnel pose an impediment in the claimed induction in SSS?
iii) Are the respondents justified in taking the impugned decision of non-inclusion of the applicants in SSS taking into account the views taken by the expert bodies and even admitted by the administrative Ministry at some point of time.
iv) Does the decision of the respondents suffer from any vitiating factor warranting interference in judicial review?
After elaborately discussing the respective contentions, finally the said OA was dismissed being found devoid of any merit.
10. In both the O.As, the respective applicants, mainly state that they are also discharging the same duties and responsibilities of those posts, which are included in the Subordinate Statistical Service (SSS) and hence, they are also entitled to be included in the said service. In OA No.767/2009 the applicants were originally appointed as Data Processing Assistants and this Honble Tribunal after detailed consideration of the case, having held that the applicants therein are not performing the functions of essentially/predominantly statistical in character dismissed the said OA.
11. In the present OA, the applicant was admittedly appointed initially as Statistical Assistant in the statistical section of Respondent No.2 and had been promoted as Statistical Investigator before the said posts were re-designated as Data Processing Assistant Grade `A and Grade `B respectively. It is also not the case of the respondents that on re-designation of the post, the functions performed by the applicant are changed. Therefore, the decision in OA No.767/2009 is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
12. Further, the respondents in their counter categorically stated that in response to the Ministrys OM dated 27.02.2003 (Annexure A11), the 3rd Respondent (NCRB) vide their letter dated 06.08.2003 (Annexure A12) that though the post of Statistical Investigator has been re-designated as Data Processing Assistant, Gr. `B, the incumbent is continuing to function in the statistical unit of their Bureau, and since the said clarification received from NCRB was too late, the incumbent and the post offered could not be included in SSS cadre. In this view of the matter also, the applicants claim cannot be rejected by equating with that of the Data Processing Assistants of National Sample Survey Organization.
13. Mere nomenclature of a post cannot solely determine whether it can be included in a particular service or not. That is why, this Tribunal in OA 767/2009, after elaborately examining the functions being performed by the applicants therein and having found that they are not performing the functions essentially/predominantly statistical in character, held that they are not entitled for inclusion of their posts in SSS. In case of the applicants post, the respondents without conducting any independent exercise, whether the applicant performing the functions essentially/predominantly statistical in character, though the 3rd Respondent vide Annexure A-12, categorically stated that although, the posts have been re-designated, the incumbents are continuing to function in the statistical unit of the Bureau, refused to include applicants post into SSS, by quoting the judgment of this Tribunal in OA 767/2009.
14. Since the respondents rejected the case of the applicant for inclusion of her isolated post in Subordinate Statistical Service with effect from the date of its inception with all consequential benefits on the sole ground that the applicant is similarly situated like the Data Entry Operators in the Data Processing Division (DPD) and Survey Design and Research Design (SD/RD) of National Sample Survey Organization who are the applicants in OA No.767/2009 vide Office Memorandum dated 12.11.2010 (Annexure A17) and in view of the above findings, the 1st Respondent is directed to re-consider the claim of the applicant afresh, after consultation with the DoPT (Respondent No.4), and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the OA is disposed of with the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
(V. N. Gaur) (V. Ajay Kumar) Member (A) Member (J) /nsnrvak/