Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Hemant Kumar Rai vs The Union Of India on 29 May, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA No.3832/2011
With
OA-3831/2011
Reserved on:28.5.2012.
Pronounced on: 29.05.2012
Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J)
Honble Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Member (A)
OA No.3832/2011
Hemant Kumar Rai
S/o Late Keshav Rai Occu.
Linguist Tibetan, NTRO
R/o Village-Naipura,
Post Muftiganj,
District Jaunpur, UP. Applicant
OA No.3831/2011
Shiv Kumar Sharma
S/o Late Rati Bhan Sharma
Occu. Linguist Arabic, NTRO
R/o Village & Post Office Behlba,
District Rohtak,
Haryana. Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Pradeep Jain and Shri M.J. Michael.
Versus
1. The Union of India
Through National Security Advisor
O/o PMO, South Block,
Raisina Hill,
New Delhi-110001.
2. Chairman,
National Technical Research
Organisation (NTRO),
Block-III,
Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi-110067. ..Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Krishan Kumar.
O R D E R
Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) In both these OAs since the facts are common, even the counsel representing both the parties are common, therefore, with their consent both the OAs are being disposed of by a common order. For the purpose of narrating facts, OA No.3832/2010 is taken as a lead case.
2. Applicant has challenged order dated 28.9.2011 (page 18) whereby it was decided by the Chairman, National Technical Research Organisation (hereinafter referred to as NTRO), to repatriate him to his parent department with immediate effect. He has also challenged order dated 19.11.2011 whereby his request for continuing them in NTRO has been rejected. He has further sought a direction to the respondents to reconsider his recruitment on a direct recruitment basis or in the alternate direct the respondents to continue the period of deputation until absorption takes place.
3. The brief facts, as stated by the applicant, are that an advertisement was issued by the respondents on 7-13 April, 2007 for filling up the post of Linguist in Foreign Languages (page 19 at 20). Since applicant fulfilled the educational qualifications, he had applied for direct recruitment. After he was selected, he was appointed on 25.2.2008 (page 31). However, in his appointment letter it was mentioned on deputation basis, while in the case of other 5 persons who had also similarly applied and were initially appointed on deputation basis, it was converted to direct recruitment, one example is shown at page 47.
4. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that since he was selected on the basis of his merit and others, who were selected with him had been treated as direct recruitment, there is no justification to treat only 2 persons out of 7 on deputation basis or to repatriate him to his parent department. Being aggrieved, he had given a representation but that too has been rejected by a bald and non-speaking order. In these circumstances, he had no other option but to file the present OA.
5. Respondents on the other hand have opposed this OA. They have stated that the applicant was initially appointed as Linguist in NTRO on deputation basis for a period of 3 years. Prior to completion of his deputation period applicant had submitted an application requesting extension of deputation/absorption. When his application was being processed, he was holding the post of Havaldar in the Pay Band of Rs.5200-20200 (PB-1) with Grade Pay of Rs.2800/- in his parent cadre (Indian Army) whereas he was erroneously appointed to the post of Linguist Group-A in the Pay Band Rs.15600-30100/- (PB-3) with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- which was 4 steps higher than his substantive post in the parent cadre. As per DOP&T OM, a person can be given appointment to only one grade higher on deputation basis with respect to his substantive post/grade in the parent cadre. On noting this irregularity, immediately an order was passed repatriating him to his parent department as the mistake could not have been allowed to be perpetuated. They have further stated that applicant was appointed on deputation basis which was duly accepted by him. Moreover, no assurance was given to him on any point of time that he would be absorbed. Training is given only in the interest of organization which does not confer any right for absorption, therefore, no case is made out for interference. They have thus prayed that the OA may be dismissed.
6. We have heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings also.
7. Perusal of the advertisement annexed on page 20 shows that applications were invited for filling up the posts of Linguist for Foreign Languages on direct recruitment or deputation/absorption or re-employment of retired personnel from Government service meaning thereby that either it could be done by way of direct recruitment or deputation or re-employment. Moreover, his appointment letter shows applicant was appointed to the post of Linguist (Arabic) on deputation basis for a period of 3 years. The Director, MT-14, General Staff Branch, Integrated HQ of MoD (Army) were, therefore, requested to relieve the applicant for taking up his new assignment. This appointment was never challenged by the applicant. On the contrary, he accepted the same so naturally he continued to work as Linguist on deputation basis. In the appointment letter it is also made clear that it was for a period of 3 years. The law is well settled that deputationist has no right to claim absorption in the department where he is taken on deputation basis. Respondents have explained in their reply that they had committed a mistake in appointing the applicant on deputation basis as the post of Linguist which was 4 steps ahead of what he was getting in his parent department whereas as per DOP&T OM they could have given one step ahead than what a person is drawing in his parent department. This mistake came to their notice when applicant requested the department to extend his deputation period, therefore, they decided to repatriate the applicant back to their parent department. The order of repatriation was passed after a period of 3 years, therefore, respondents were well within their rights to repatriate the applicant.
8. The only ground taken by the counsel for the applicants was that the other 5 persons out of 7 persons who were selected in a common selection have been treated as direct recruitment while applicants have been treated as on deputation. This ground, according to us, does not give any right to the applicants to claim regular appointment because they had accepted their appointment on deputation basis and had even prayed that they be allowed to continue even on deputation basis. The order of other person which has been annexed on page 47 shows that one Shri Iyer Sanjeev Kumar Vedhachalam was converted from deputation to direct recruitment in Russian Language but that was done way back in May, 2008 whereas applicants had neither given any representation at that time nor had claimed that they should be appointed on direct recruitment basis. Moreover, in his case his parent department had raised a query vide letter dated 9.4.2008 (page 48) because the said person had applied for the post of Linguist (Russian) through his parent office for direct recruitment. The parent department had thus asked the NTRO to clarify whether the said official had been selected on deputation basis or on direct recruitment basis. It seems it was in such circumstances that the said official was appointed on direct recruitment basis instead of deputation basis. Applicants have not placed on record any document to suggest that they had applied against direct recruitment. In fact, in their case applicants were relieved for deputation only, thus no comparison can be drawn with others. In any case simply because some other person was converted from deputation to direct recruitment, it would not give any right to the applicants to claim regular appointment at this stage. We are informed by the counsel for the respondents that applicants had already been relieved, therefore, at this stage to direct the respondents to extend their deputation, would not be feasible.
9. In view of above, both the OAs are dismissed being devoid of any merit. No costs.
Let a copy of this order be kept in the other file as well.
(Sudhir Kumar ) (Mrs. Meera Chhibber) Member (A) Member (J) Rakesh