Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Prakahar Agarwal vs Nhai on 1 April, 2022
Item No. 16 1 OA No.835/2022
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No. 835/2022
M.A. No. 901/2022
M.A. No. 902/2022
This the 1st day of April, 2022
Hon'ble Ms. Manjula Das, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
1. Prakhar Agrawal, Deputy Manager, Group 'A'
Aged about 27 years
S/o Sh. Harish Kumar Agrawal
R/o 35 Saraswati Nagar No.1,
Behind AG Office, Gwalior
MP-474002.
2. Raghav Tripathi, Deputy Manager, Group 'A'
Aged about 28 years
S/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Tripathi
R/o 5/909 Vikram Khand,
Gomti Nagar,
Lucknow-226010.
3. Yogesh Pathak, Deputy Manager, Group 'A'
Aged about 28 years
S/o Sh. Yogendra Kumar Pathak
R/o Plot No.77 Anjaani Puram Colony,
Chitaipur, Varanasi.
4. Pushpendra Singh, Deputy Manager, Group 'A'
Aged about 27 years
S/o Sh. Magan Singh
R/o 1, Aarzoo Nagar,
Hathoj, Kalwar Road,
Jaipur, Rajastan-302012.
5. Sachin Kumar, Deputy Manager, Group 'A'
Aged about 26 years
S/o Sh. Shailesh Kumar
R/o B-502 NHAI Residential Enclave,
Dwarka, Sector-17 Pocket D'
...... Applicants
(By Advocate : Mr. M.K.Bhardwaj)
Item No. 16 2 OA No.835/2022
Versus
1. National Highway Authority of India
through its Chairman
G-5&6, Sector 10, Dwarka
New Delhi 110075
2. Chief General Manager (HR)/ Admin
G-5&6, Sector 10, Dwarka
New Delhi 110075.
....Respondents
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Ms. Manjula Das, Chairman MA No.902/2022 This application has been filed by the applicants seeking joining together in single application.
For the reasons mentioned therein, MA is allowed. MA No.901/2022 This application has been filed by the applicants seeking exemption from filing typed copies of dim annexures.
Since we are disposing of the OA, this MA is disposed of as having become infructuous.
OA No.835/2022
The present OA has been filed by the applicant seeking following relief(s) :-
"(i) To direct the respondents to consider the claim of applicants for promotion to the post of Manager Item No. 16 3 OA No.835/2022 (T) with all consequential benefits alongwith their batch-mates and juniors.
(ii) To direct the respondents to treat the applicants appointment as Deputy Manager (T) from the earliest of the dates when their juniors or candidates at lower level were appointed to the said post of Deputy Manager (T) and consider their case for promotion to the post of Manager (T) by holding review DPC and grant them promotion to the said post of Manager (T) with all consequential benefits.
iii) To declare the action of respondents in not treating the applicants as eligible at par with their batchmates and juniors appointed on the basis of 2017 advertisement as illegal and direct the respondents to treat the applicant at par with their batchmates of 2017 at advertisement for all purposes including eligibility for promotion to the post of Manager (T) and issue appropriate directions for promotion of applicant to the said post of Manager (T) with all consequential benefits from the date of their juniors and batch-mated promoted vide order dated 15.03.2022 with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay.
iv) To direct the respondents to grant 2 years relaxation in qualifying service to the applicants and consider their case for promotion to the post of Manager (T) by holding review DPC and grant them promotion as Deputy Manager (T) alongwith their juniors and batch-mates promoted vide order dated 15.03.2022.
v) To allow the OA with costs.
vi) Any other relief's as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice."
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents issued an advertisement in the Employment News dated 08- 14.10.2016 as well as in other leading newspapers to fill up the 40 posts of Dy. Manager (Technical) in Pay Band-3 Item No. 16 4 OA No.835/2022 Rs.15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs.5400 in CDA pattern on direct recruitment basis through GATE scores valid as on 31.07.2017. In continuation of said advertisement another advertisement was issued vide which 40 more posts of Dy. Manager (Technical) were sought to be filled up on the basis of GATE scores upto 2017. Applicants being eligible for the said post applied in response to the said advertisement. The respondents notified the first select list on 01.09.2017 against the first advertisement and issued offer of appointment. Similar select list was issued on 29.11.2017 against the second advertisement. It is submitted that as the selection was finalised on the basis of GATE scores upto 2017, the respondents were required to issue one select list. It is further submitted that on the basis of the final selection, the respondents issued offer of appointments to all the selected candidates including the applicants. However, the said offers of appointment were not issued simultaneously, which resulted in delay in appointment of selected candidates. The applicants were issued offer of appointments on 29.11.2017, 12.12.2017 and 29.01.2018 respectively. In response thereto the applicants joined as Dy. Manager (Technical) on different dates between January and March 2018. It is submitted by the Item No. 16 5 OA No.835/2022 applicants that for this inordinate delay in offering appointment to the applicants, the respondents did not give any justification therefor. It is also relevant to note that being direct recruits, the applicants had no reasons to apprehend that they will be put to a disadvantageous position vis-à-vis their batchmates including juniors, particularly when seniority and other service benefits are governed by the instructions issued by DOP&T. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid discriminatory action, the applicants submitted representation dated 16.11.2021 followed by reminder dated 11.03.2022 pointing out that the action of the respondents in ignoring the senior while making promotion to the post of Manager (Technical) was arbitrary being violative of DOP&T instructions contained in OM dated 25.03.1996 as well as the judgment of this Tribunal dated 09.05.2011 in OA No.3278/2010 as also other orders passed by Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court on the same issue.
4. Heard Mr. M.K.Bhardwaj, learned counsel for applicants.
5. At the outset, learned counsel for applicants has submitted that the applicants will be satisfied if their representation dated 16.11.2021 followed by reminder Item No. 16 6 OA No.835/2022 dated 11.03.2022 sent to the respondents, is decided in a time bound manner.
6. In view of the above, the OA is disposed of at the admission stage itself, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the applicants dated 16.11.2021 followed by reminder dated 11.03.2022 in the light of DOP&T OM dated 25.03.1996 as well decision of this Tribunal in OA No.3278/2010 dated 09.05.2011 as also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7781/2021 and batch - Sadhana Singh Dangi and others vs. Pinki Asati and others etc. etc. dated 16.12.2021, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, under intimation to the applicants. It is made clear that benefit of promotion be extended to the applicants if extended to their juniors. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Mohd. Jamshed) (Manjula Das)
Member (A) Chairman
/sd/nisha/