Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. O.P.Sapra vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 22 December, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA NO. 981/2011
New Delhi this the 22nd day of December, 2011
Honble Mr.G.George Paracken, Member(J)
Honble Dr. A.K.Mishra, Member (A)
1. Sh. O.P.Sapra
Labour Officer,
Labour Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Nimri Colony
Ashok Vihar Delhi-110052.
2. Sh. Raj Singh Mathur
Labour Officer,
Labour Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Nimri Colony
Ashok Vihar Delhi-110052.
3. Sh. V.K.Singh
Labour Officer,
Labour Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Nimri Colony
Ashok Vihar Delhi-110052.
. Applicants
(By Advocate: Sh. Malaya Chand)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Through the Chief Secretary,
7th Floor, Delhi Sachivalaya,
I.P.Estate,
New Delhi-110002.
2. The Labour Commissioner
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
5, Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi-110054.
.. Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Rashmi Chopra and
Sh. Piyush Sharma for Sh. Rajinder Khatter)
O R D E R
Honble Shri George Paracken:
The grievance of the applicants in this Original Application is that even though they are similarly placed as the applicant Sh. Sushil Kumar in OA-2076/2008 and Sh. Om Prakash in OA-675/2009 decided by this Tribunal by common order dated 27.7.2009 and even one of the applicants (Sh. O.P.Sapra) is senior to them, the respondents have issued the Annexure A-1 order No. PF/1/31/648/LC/Estt./10/5656, dated 11.3.2010 confining the promotions as Labour Officer on regular basis only to the applicants in those OAs. They have, therefore, sought the following reliefs in this OA:
(i) to pass an order to implement the order dated 27-07-2009 in O.A. No.2076/2008 and O.A. No.675/2009 titled as Sh. Sushil Kumar Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. and Sh. Om Prakash Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. in case of applicants in its letter and spirit, granting them regularizing them from the dates of respective ad-hoc promotion and consequential benefits including seniority and further for promotion to the post of Asst. Labour Commissioner.
2. The admitted facts in this case are delineated here. As per the Recruitment Rules for the post of Labour Officer, 50% of the posts are filled up by promotion failing which by transfer on deputation and failing which by direct recruitment and the balance 50% by direct recruitment. Vide order dated 28.2.2002, 26 temporary posts which included 5 posts of Labour Officers were created for the period from 1.3.2002 to 28.2.2003 under the plan scheme called Strengthening of Industrial Machinery. Sanction for the aforesaid posts have been extended from time to time. On creation of those 5 vacancies, the total available posts of Labour Officers rose to 11. The Departmental Promotion Committee (for short DPC) met on 6.8.2002 for consideration of promotion of Inspecting Officers to the post of Labour Officers recommended the following 8 Officers including the applicants in the order of their seniority:-
(a) Sh. O.P.Sapra
(b) Sh. Sushil Kumar
(c) Sh. A.K.Sinha
(d) Sh. R.S.Mathur
(e) Sh. A.K.Biruly
(f) Sh. P.K.Saini
(g) Sh. V.K.Singh
(h) Sh. V.K.Rao to be promoted as Labour Officer on ad hoc basis.
Later on, vide Office order dated 19.9.2002, they were promoted as Labour Officers on ad hoc basis from the respective dates of their assumption of charge, till 28.02.2003.
3. Subsequently, vide order dated 11.10.2002 , the following Inspecting Officers were also promoted to the post of Labour Officer:-
(1) Sh. Om Prakash (2) Sh. R.M.Parthasarthy (3) Sh. Malkhan Singh When another vacancy of Labour Officer has occurred w.e.f. 16.12.2002 by the promotion of the incumbent Sh. S.C.Jain as Assistant Labour Commissioner on regular basis, one more vacancy has arisen.
4. Meanwhile the following persons have joined the department as Labour Officers on regular basis on direct recruitment:
Sl.No. Name Date of Joining 1. Sh. K.M.Singh 19.7.2005 2. Sh. Sanjay Kumar Gupta 22.7.2005 3. Sh. Gurmukh Singh 19.10.2005 4. Sh. Rati Singh 6.11.2006
5. Later on, on the recommendation of the DPC held on 24.10.2007 the following 6 Labour Officers promoted on ad hoc basis including the applicants who were promoted on regular basis but with prospective effect.
(a) Sh. O.P.Sapra
(b) Sh. Sushil Kumar
(c) Sh. A.K.Sinha
(d) Sh. Omprakash
(e) Sh. R.S.Mathur
(f) Sh. V.K.Singh
6. Out of the aforesaid six Labour Officers, Sh. Sushil Kumar and Sh. Om Prakash has filed OA No.2076/2008 (supra) and 675/2009 (supra) before this Tribunal praying for their regularization as Labour Officers with effect from the date of their promotion as Labour Officer on ad hoc basis. Those two OAs were allowed vide order dated 27.7.2009, its relevant part of the said order reads as under:
12. To conclude, it is not in dispute that the applicants had been given ad-hoc promotion as Labour Officer in the year 2002 after due consideration of their eligibility and by the recommendations of the regularly constituted DPC. A perusal of the minutes of the DPC reveals that at that point of time the regular promotion was not considered because of the complextion of the available vacancies. The applicants have been continuously working against these posts without any break. They also been regularly promoted subsequently as such in the year 2007. The denial of regular promotion to them with retrospective effect has only been on the ground of non-availability of requisite number of vacancies in the year 2002. From the facts revealed before us in the light of the additional affidavit filed by the respondents, it is found that even the five additional posts of Labour Officer created in pursuance of the Apex Courts direction have continued all these years to be finally converted into Non-Plan posts with even a change of nomenclature of the concerned scheme as Strengthening and Reorganization of the Department. By the latest orders, these posts have been allowed to be continued even in the current year. Since the applicants already stand promoted in regular capacity from the year 2007, in order to give them the benefit of regular promotion retrospectively availability of vacancies relevant is only for the period 2002 before 10.12.2007 when the order of regular promotion was issued. As these posts were available during that time, the impediment posed by the respondents regarding non-availability of vacancies is not found to be factually correct or legally tenable. As per the 2007 DPC minutes, 4 vacancies pertained to the year 2002. Both the applicants, as per the seniority list were within this range.
13. In view of the foregoing, the claims of the applicants are found to be justified and the impugned orders are set aside. The respondents are directed to issue appropriate orders conferring them the benefits of regular promotion from the date of ad-hoc promotion. Needless to say, as the applicants have actually been working in this capacity, they would be entitled to all consequential benefits including seniority.
7. Later, Sh. K.M.Singh and Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Labour Officers who were appointed on direct recruitment basis challenged the aforesaid order dated 27.7.2009 before this Tribunal vide OA No. 2800/2009. However, the respondents implemented the said order vide the impugned order dated 11.3.2010 subject to the outcome of the aforesaid OA.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the first applicant Sh. O.P.Sapra is senior to both Sh. Sushil Kumar and Sh. Om Prakash who had approached this Tribunal earlier vide OA No.2076/2008 and 675/2009 (supra) and obtained favourable orders. It is a well-settled law that the seniors will get precedence over the juniors in the matter of promotion provided they are otherwise eligible. It is not the case of the respondents that Sh. O.P.Sapra, who is senior to both Sh. Sushil Kumar and Sh. Omprakash was not eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner along with them, even though he was not a party in the aforesaid cases. It is also not disputed that other two applicants Sh. R.S.Mathur and Sh. V.K.Singh are similarly placed as Sh. Sushil Kumar was promoted as Labour Officers on ad hoc basis vide order dated 19.9.2002. Sh. Omprakash was, in fact, promoted as Labour Officer on ad hoc basis only vide order dated 11.10.2002. We, therefore, do not find any justification on the part of the Respondents in denying regular promotion to the applicants as Labour Officer from the respective dates of their ad hoc promotion with consequential benefits including seniority as in the case of Sh. Sushil Kumar and Sh. Omprakash, who have been granted similar benefits in terms of the order of this Tribunal dated 27.7.2009 in OA-2076/2008 and OA-675/2009 (supra). Therefore, they should also be promoted on regular basis immediately but in any case within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
( Dr. A.K. Mishra ) ( George Paracken )
Member (A) Member (J)
sd