Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Ravinder Pal Singh vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi on 26 September, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI OA No.646/2012 Order reserved on 14.05. 2012 Order pronounced on 26.09.2012 HONBLE MR. G.GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MR. SUDHIR KUMAR, MEMBER (A) Shri Ravinder Pal Singh S/o Shri Thervinder Singh r/o B-67, Ganesh Nagar, New Delhi. -Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Ajesh Luthra) Versus 1. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi Through the Chief Secretary, 5th Floor, Delhi Sachivalaya, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Secretary (Services) GNCT of Delhi 7th Level, B Wing, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. -Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Vijay Pandita) O R D E R Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Member (A):
The applicant of this case is an officer of the Delhi Administration Subordinate Services (DASS, in short). He was first appointed as Grade II officer in DASS on 03.03.1992, and then promoted on 01.03.2000 as Grade I DASS officer. DASS is a feeder cadre for Class-I Delhi, and Andaman Nicobar Islands Civil Service (DANICS, in short), and persons from DASS are for some time first appointed in ex-Cadre posts in DANICS on an officiating or adhoc basis and then after holding DPC, they are confirmed in the DANIC Services in substantive capacity. In July 2011, the process of collection of ACRs of the eligible Grade I DASS officers for considering their cases for promotion to DANICS, first on ad hoc ex-Cadre basis, and then later on substantive basis, was initiated by the respondents. Thereafter, in view of the urgency, on an ad hoc and emergent basis, 106 Grade I DASS officers were temporarily promoted & appointed against the ex-Cadre posts of DANICS, for a period of six months, or till further orders, or till the posts are filled up on regular or substantive basis, through the impugned order dated 19.10.2011.
2. The applicant is feeling aggrieved because he has been left out of that initial list, in spite of his service record being outstanding, and there being no departmental proceedings pending or contemplated against him. He has submitted that even some of his juniors have also already been appointed on an ad hoc and emergent basis in the ex-Cadre posts of DANICS, while he has been left out of the same. He also submitted a representation to the respondents to consider his case as well, but without attending to the same, the respondents had issued an ad-hoc placement orders of two of his juniors also against ex-Cadre posts of DANICS, because of which he has approached this Tribunal. He has taken the ground that because of his non-promotion, he is suffering great mental agony and loss of status, causing social stigma, and monetary loss. In the result, he has prayed for the following reliefs:-
a) quash and set aside the impugned order and/or
b) direct the respondents to immediately consider the applicant for promotion and to promote him to the ex-cadre post of DANICS on adhoc and emergent basis w.e.f. the date his immediate junior has been so promoted with all consequential benefits.
c) award costs of the proceedings and
d) pass any other order/direction which this Honble Tribunal deem fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. In their counter reply, the respondents pointed out two things. Their first contention was that the applicant cannot claim an ad-hoc promotion as a matter of right, due to the fact that while granting such ad-hoc promotions, some officers are given higher duties and responsibilities, and neither the seniority nor the pay of the applicant is affected by that. It was, therefore, submitted that since his claim for substantive promotion has not been overlooked, the OA cannot be entertained. In stating so, respondents had relied upon the case law in State Bank of India vs. Mohd. Myuddin : 1987 (4) SCC 486, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Srikant Chaphekar, 1992 (5) SLR (SC) 635, Indian Airlines Corporation v. K.C. Shukla, (1993) 1 SCC 17, Bishan Swaroop Vs. Union of India : 1974 SC 1618 and Syed Khalid Rizvi v. Union of India, (1993) Suppl. 3 SCC 575.
4. The second contention taken by the respondents was that promotions to the higher posts on the basis of merit can be given only by consideration of the respective cases by the DPC, after assessing the service records of the officers in the zone of consideration, and that it was not the function of this Tribunal to indulge in such an exercise, and the instant application is, therefore, only an abuse of the process of law.
5. However, recognizing the merit in the case of the applicant, the respondents had also mentioned that his case could not be considered in the first round of the exercise of persons being placed against the ex-cadre post of DANICS because his ACRs for the year 2008-09, for the period from 01.04.2009 to 14.09.2009, and for the year 2010-11, had till then not been received from the office of Divisional Commissioner, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. It was also mentioned that the process has again been initiated now, on 19.03.2012, through Annexure R-1, for the appointment of the 64 left out Grade-I (DASS) officers, and other similarly situated officers, against the ex-cadre post of DANICS on similar ad-hoc and emergent basis, and that the name of the applicant is also mentioned at Sl. No.29 in the said list, and that a meeting of the Screening Committee will be conducted as and when the requisite documents in respect of the concerned persons are received.
6. It was further submitted that the applicant has rushed to this Tribunal prematurely, without appreciating the action already initiated by the respondents regarding the consideration of his case. In the result, they had prayed that the OA is not maintainable, and is liable to be dismissed, with costs, and also that the applicant is not entitled for any Interim Relief.
7. The applicant filed a rejoinder more or less reiterating his case and submitted that even four more of his juniors had since been, in the meanwhile, similarly promoted, but that his case has still been left out, and that the stand of the respondents, therefore, cannot be countenanced in law.
8. Heard. The case was argued vehemently by the learned counsel for both the sides.
9. It appears to us also that the applicant has perhaps jumped the gun, and not allowed the respondents to complete the process of according ad-hoc promotions against the ex-Cadre posts of DANICS to all the eligible DASS Grade-I officers, in which his name was also included as per Annexure R-1 dated 19.03.2012. The respondents have nowhere stated that the applicant is not eligible for promotion, and, therefore, it is obvious that as soon as his records are received, they would give a fair consideration to his case.
10. It is trite law that an ad-hoc promotion against an ex-Cadre post does not give rise to any right of seniority to anybody, and just because of having officiated an on ad-hoc and emergent basis against any ex-Cadre posts in DANICS, his juniors will not become seniors to him, as per the settled case law in this regard. In fact, as has been held by the Honble Apex Court in the case Chief of Naval Staff and anr. vs. G.Gopalakrishna Pillai & Ors., (1996) 1 SCC 521, even an ad-hoc appointment within ones own Cadre itself, against a senior post, without selection by a regularly constituted selection body, even though it may have been uninterruptedly followed by regularization in the same post, does not count towards seniority against that higher post.
11. Therefore, we see no reason to set aside the impugned order dated 19.10.2011, by which 106 officers of DASS were so appointed on an ad- hoc and emergent basis, against the ex-Cadre posts in DANICS, for a limited period of six months, or till further orders, or till the posts are filled up on a regular basis.
12. It is obvious from the reply filed by the respondents that as and when the posts in the DANICS are being substantively filled up on a regular basis, after conducting the DPC in this regard, the case of the applicant would be given due weightage by the respondents.
13. In the result, while the OA cannot succeed, but respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant, to entrust him also, if possible, a similar ad-hoc and emergent basis temporary promotion against any ex-Cadre post of DANICS, if so allowed by the Rules, after conducting a meeting of the Screening Committee, keeping in view the fact that his seniors and some of his juniors have been so promoted temporarily already.
14. With these observations, the O.A. is disposed of, but there shall be no order as to costs.
(Sudhir Kumar) (G. George Paracken) Member (A) Member (J) cc.