Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai

Shri Mohammad Arifur Rehman vs The Union Of India on 10 February, 2011

      

  

  

 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BOMBAY BENCH, MUMBAI
CAMP AT NAGPUR.

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 2188 of 2006.

Dated  this Thursday the 10th day of  February,  2011.

CORAM :        HON'BLE SHRI JOG SINGH, MEMBER (J).
	       HON'BLE SHRI SUDHAKAR MISHRA, MEMBER (A).

Shri Mohammad Arifur Rehman
R/at : House No. 456, 
Durgaiya Cement Road, 
Sadar,
Nagpur  440 001.		...		Applicant 

(By Advocate 			)

	VERSUS

1. The Union of India  
   through its Secretary,
   Department of Mines,
   Ministry of Mines,
   Shastry Bhavan,
   New Delhi  110001.

2. The Director General,
   Geological Survey of
   India, 27- Jawaharlal
   Nehru Road, 
   Kolkata  700016.

3. The Deputy Director 
   General, Geological 
   Survey of India, 
   Central Region, 
   Seminary hills, 
   Nagpur  440006.		...		Respondents

(By Advocate			)


O R D E R

Per  :  Shri Jog Singh, Member (J)

The applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking the following relief :

(i) To quash and set aside the office order passed by the Respondent No. 3 bearing No. 2124/A-32016/14/98/ ESTT (T) Vol-II dated 29-12-2005 regarding promotion to the post of Driver Gr-I and No. 604 / A- 20012/2/MAR/Dri/ OPM/03-04 dated 22  08- 2006 regarding fixation of pay in the post of Driver Gr-I, being illegal and enforceable.
(ii) Be further pleased to pass an order or direction to the Respondents that the promotion of the applicant to the post of Driver Gr-. I be effected from 08-11-1996 notionally from the date his junior Shri M. A. Khadse has been promoted in the said post as per sealed cover procedure applicable in his case.
(iii) Be further pleased to pass an order to grant him seniority position over and above his junior Shri M. A. Khadse in the promotion post of Driver Gr-I in the interest of justice.
(iv) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal deemed fit be granted.

2. The applicant in the present O.A. is mainly challenging the order dated 29.12.2005 by which he has been granted promotion to the post of Driver Grade-I and the consequential order dated 22.08.2006 fixing his pay in the post of Driver Grade-I notionally w.e.f. 02.03.2005 and effectively w.e.f. 04.05.2005 under FR 22 (a)(I). His next increment was to accrue on 01.12.2005 under FR 22(1)(a)(i) on exercise of due option. The primary grievance of the applicant appears to be that he should have been promoted as Driver Grade-I from the date his junior was granted the said promotion.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed as Driver in the Office of Geological Survey of India, Nagpur, on 13.12.1979. On account of his involvement in criminal case pertaining to theft, etc., he was placed under deemed suspension w.e.f. 03.05.1989. He was, however, acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class on technical grounds and, as such, the department reinstated him but ordered that the intervening period between 03.05.1989 to 03.12.2001 would be treated as spent on leave due and admissible to the applicant. The suspension of the applicant was revoked by the respondents by order dated 26.11.2001 and he accordingly joined the duties from 03.12.2001. He was later on promoted as Driver Grade-II w.e.f. 03.12.2001 and on his representation he was granted the said benefit on notional basis from 01.08.1993. Subsequently, the applicant was also considered and promoted to the post of Driver Grade-I by order dated 29.12.2005 and accordingly his pay was fixed in the said grade by order dated 22.08.2006. The applicant, however, claims that this promotion should be granted from the date his junior was given the same.

4. The respondents have filed reply and have stated that the junior to the applicant, namely  Shri M.A. Khadse, was promoted to the post of Driver Grade-I when the applicant was under suspension. At that time the applicant was not even working as Driver Grade-II. Therefore, the question of his consideration for the post of Driver Grade-I, at that time, did not arise. The applicant's fate was kept in a sealed cover as far as the post of Driver Grade-II is concerned and on his acquittal on technical ground by the Criminal Court, the applicant was notionally promoted to the post of Driver Grade-II w.e.f. 01.08.1993.

5. Thereafter, when he became eligible for the post of Driver Grade-II he was duly considered and promoted notionally w.e.f. 02.03.2005 by order dated 29.12.2005. The respondents submit that they have taken a lenient view in the matter and the Director General, being the appellate authority, exercises power conferred upon him under FR 54 (13) (7) and ordered the revocation of suspension of the applicant and further that the same shall not be treated as spent on duty except for pension purpose. The respondents have shown leniency inasmuch as they did not resort to departmental proceedings against the applicant despite his acquittal on technical grounds in the criminal case.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the pleadings and documents annexed therewith.

7. The applicant has not pointed out any rule or law which gives him a right to be considered and promoted to the post of Driver Grade-I while he was under suspension. He has only a right to be considered and kept in a sealed cover for the post of Driver Grade-II even during his suspension and we note from the pleadings and records that this right was duly respected by the respondents by considering the candidature of the applicant and keeping the same in a sealed cover. The case of the applicant is, therefore, not comparable with his junior as far as promotion to the post of Driver Grade-I is concerned, which was granted to him rightly by the respondents by order dated 29.12.2005.

8. In the circumstances, there is no legal infirmity in the action of the respondents in promoting him to the post of Driver grade-I by order dated 02.11.2005 and fixing his pay retrospectively from 02.03.2005 (notionally) and from 04.05.2005 effectively by order dated 22.08.2006. The O.A. is bereft of any merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.



(SUDHAKAR MISHRA)			(JOG SINGH)
  MEMBER (A)				MEMBER (J)		

os*