Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Ratan Kumar Biswas Aged About 55 Years ... vs The Union Of India Through Its Secretary on 30 July, 2015
Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow Original Application No. 12/2013 Reserved on 21.7.2015 Pronounced on 30.7.2013 Honble Sri Navneet Kumar , Member (J) Honble Ms. Jayati Chandra, Member (A) Ratan Kumar Biswas aged about 55 years son of late N.C.Biswas, resident of House No.B-108/2, Manak Nagar,Lucknow presently working as Senior Section Research Engineer, Institute Track Machine, Directorate Research Designs and Standards Organisaiton,Manak Nagar, Lucknow. .Applicant By Advocate: Sri A.K.Srivastava Vs. 1. The Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The Director General, Research Designs and Standards Organisation, Manak Nagar, Lucknow. 3. The Deputy Director- Establishment II, Research Designs and Standards Organisation, Manak Nagar, Lucknow. 4. The Assistant Personal Officer/Gaz Research Designs and Standards Organisation, Manak Nagar, Lucknow. .Respondents. By Advocate: Sri Rajendra Singh ORDER
BY HONBLE SRI NAVNEET KUMAR, MEMBER (J) The present Original Application is preferred by the applicant u/s 19 of the AT Act, with the following reliefs:-
i) That an order direction of relief may kindly be issued thereby directing the opposite parties not to deprive the applicants promotion by the impugned order dated 25.10.2012.
ii) That an order, direction or relief may kindly be issued thereby quashing the impugned promotion order dated 25.10.2012.
iii) That an order, direction or relief may kindly be issued thereby commanding the opposite parties not to promote such persons , who are junior to the applicant.
iv) That issue any such other order or direction, which this Honble Tribunal deems just and proper in the circumstances of the case.
v) That heavy cost of the original application may be allowed in favour of the applicant, due to malafide intention and knowingly enforcing the petitioner /applicant to approach to this Honble Tribunal.
2. The applicant joined Research Designs and Standards Organisation (in short RDSO) as J.R.A./J.E. in 1984 and subsequently promoted as Research Assistant. Subsequently, in 2002,a major penalty charge sheet was issued , as such he was not considered for restructuring and promotion was given to other persons namely Sri V.C.Agarwal and Sri Daya Shankar. Subsequently, the charges so levelled against the applicant were not proved, as such he was promoted. The applicant claims that the respondents be directed to promote the applicant after quashing the order dated 25.10.2012 and also issue a direction upon the Opposite parties not to promote the persons who are junior to the applicant.
3. The applicant also submitted that he has made several representation and also pursued the matter with the CPO/DG, RDSO but all such requests went in vain. It is also indicated by the learned counsel for the applicant that the seniority of all directorate and cadres are maintained separately for the purpose of promotion within cadre C and only for the filling up the Grade B post to the S&T Directorate, the inter-se-seniority list is prepared of the eligible candidates. Apart from this, it is also indicated by the applicant that the respondents without disposing of the representation of the applicant issued notice for pre-selection coaching for training , as such feeling aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, the present O.A. is preferred by the applicant.
4. On behalf of the respondents, detailed reply is filed and through reply it is indicated that Group B gazette technical posts in S&T department of RDSO is filled by departmental selection against 70% quota and by limited departmental examination against 30% quota. It is also indicated that vide staff notice dated 7.5.2012, willingness are called from the Group C staff of S&T Engineering Department to appear in the departmental selection for filling up the certain Group B Technical post in S&T Engineering Department and accordingly an inter-se-seniority was prepared on the basis of merged seniority of the staff working in scale of pay of Rs. 7450-11500 and Rs. 6500-10500/- and the staff working in scale of Rs. 7450-11500/- were en bloc placed over the staff in scale of Rs 6500-10500 and these two scales were merged in PB-2/grade pay Rs. 4600/- in the 6th CPC. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon certain circulars of Railway Board and has indicated that inter-se-seniority list for the limited purposes of departmental examination against 70% quota for filling up Group B Technician posts in S&T Engg. Department was prepared in accordance with the extant Rules. Apart from this, it is also indicated that policy regarding preparation of inter-se-seniority list for filling up Group B Technician posts by Departmental selection against 70% quota in S&T Engg. Deptt. As provided in IREM and Master Circular No.68 was also followed for preparing inter-se-seniority list in the selection notified earlier vide notification dated 19.3.2010.
5. It is also relied upon by the respondents that in the list enclosed with the notification dated 19.3.2010, the name of Sri V.C. Agarwal was shown at Sl No. 7 and the name of applicant is shown at Sl. NO. 19. The respondents also indicated that the policy of preparing inter-se-seniority list for Group B selection by considering appointment/non-fortuitous service in scale of Rs. 6500-10500/- has been followed since year 1988 in terms of para 9 of Master Circular No. 68 but the same has been challenged only now by the applicant as such the instant O.A. is highly time barred and is liable to be dismissed on this count itself.
6. Learned counsel for respondents also claims and submits that the applicant is claiming seniority position over and above Sri V.C. Agarwal who is presently shown at Sl No. 1 in the impugned staff notice and since the applicant has not impleaded the candidates over whom he is claiming seniority, as such the present O.A. is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of proper parties.
7. On behalf of the applicant, Rejoinder replyis filed and through rejoinder reply, mostly reiterated the contents of the O.A. and denied the contents of the counter reply.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
9. The applicant joined the respondents organisation in the year 1984 and was granted promotion as Research Assistant in 1996. Subsequently, the restructuring took place, but in the year 2002, the applicant was served with the major charge sheet as such he was not considered for restructuring. On account of applicant not being considered in the restructuring, two persons namely V.C. Agarwal and Sri Daya Shankar were promoted. Subsequently, in the year 2012, a staff notice was issued and an inter-se-seniority list of Group C staff of S&T Engg. Department was prepared on the basis of seniority lists of Group C staff working in the different directorates of S&T Engg. Deptt and on the basis of merged seniority of the staff working in the scale of Rs. 7450-11500 and Rs. 6500-10500 in pay band -2 grade pay Rs. 4600/- .Subsequently, staff working in scale of Rs. 7450-11500/- were in bloc placed over the staff in the scale of Rs. 6500-10500, as these two scales were merged in PB-2 grade pay Rs. 4600/- in the 6th CPC. It is also to be pointed out that Group B Gazetted Technical post in S&T Departmental of RDSO to be filled by department selection against 70% quota and by limited departmental competitive examination against 30% quota and the applicant being one of the aspiring candidates for the Group B Gazetted Technical post in S&T Department of RDSO to be filled through Departmental Selection against 70% quota. Accordingly, in terms of the staff notice dated 7.5.2012, willingness were called from the Group C staff of S&T Engg. Department to appear in the departmental selection for filling up Group B Tech. posts in S&T Engineering Deptt.
10. Subsequently certain representations were received against the said inter-se-seniority list. Therefore, on further examination of the case, it was found that the inter-se-seniority list issued on 7.5.2012 was not in accordance with para 203.5 of IREM Vol. I, para 2(i) and 2(iii) of Railway Boards letter dated 29.3.2010 para 9 of Master Circular No. 68. As such the same was treated as scraped with the approval of the competent authority and a revised inter-se-seniority list of Group C staff of S&T Engg. Dept. for the limited purpose of Group B selections was prepared based on length of non-fortuitous service in Pay Band II grade pay Rs. 4600/- and the seniority position of the Group C technical staff within their Group i.e. in the grade pay Rs. 6500-10500 Pay band 2 grade pay Rs. 4600/- was circulated vide staff notice dated 25.10.2012 which is impugned in the present O.A.
11. Applicant being one of the aspirant for Group B Gazetted Technical post inS&T Deptt. Of RDSO was placed at seniority No.1 in terms of staff notice dated 7.5.2012. But since the said notice was scraped, therefore, as per the provisional inter-se-seniority issued vide staff notice dated 25.10.2012, his name was shown at seniority position 11.
12. The bare perusal of the seniority list issued vide staff notice dated 19.3.2010 would reveal that in the said selection ,Sri V.C. Agrawal was shown at Sl. No. 7 and the applicant was shown at Sl. No. 19 and the said staff notice was within the knowledge of the applicant but he has not challenged the same. It is also indicated by the respondents that inter-se-seniority list dated 25.10.2012 is provisional and the applicant did not wait for final seniority list, as such the present O.A. is pre-mature and is liable to be dismissed out-rightly. It is also to be indicated that the final seniority list was issued vide staff notice dated 18.6.2013 in which the name of applicant finds place at Sl. No. 8 and he was found eligible to appear in the departmental selection against 70% quota and the result of the departmental selection against 70% quota for filling up Group B Tech. Posts in the S&T Engg. Department was declared on 13.8.2013 and none of the candidates including the applicant has been found suitable . Hence the issue of seniority position of the applicant in the inter-se-seniority list for departmental selection against 70% quota for filling up Group B Tech. Posts has no relevance.
13. Mere consideration of all the relevant facts mentioned above, the final seniority list was prepared vide staff notice dated 18.6.2013, The applicant was found eligible to appear in the departmental selection against 70% quota and his name found place at Sl. No.8. He appeared in the selection and result of the said selection was declared vide notice dated 13.8.2013 and none of the candidates including the applicant found suitable , as such claiming seniority position at this stage is not justified , unreasonable on the part of the applicant. Since the applicant failed in the selection , as such we are not inclined to interfere in the present O.A.
14. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(JAYATI CHANDRA) (NAVNEET KUMAR) MEMBER (A) MEMBER(J) HLS/-