Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Raji Vijayan vs Dr.R.N.Bhatnagar & Another) Providing ... on 11 August, 2015
Author: P.Gopinath
Bench: P.Gopinath
o;? CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 972/2013
TUESDAY, this the 11th day of August, 2015.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.U.SARATHCHANDRAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS.P.GOPINATH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Raji Vijayan, aged 57 years, w/o Vijayakumar V.R.,
Private Secretary, Central Administrative Tribunal,
Ernakulam Bench, Sastha Temple Road,
Kaloor, Cochin- 682 017,
Residing at : Kochuprakkal (Rakhi Bhavan) Punnorcode P.O.,
Pazhathottam, Alwaye, Ernakulam District. PIN 683565. . . . . Applicant
(By Advocate Mr.T.C.Govindaswamy)
1. Union of India represented by the Secretary to
the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances & Pensions
(Department of Personnel & Training),
New Delhi -110 001.
2. The Principal Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, 61/35, Copernicus Marg,
New Delhi -110 001.
3. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal,
Ernakulam Bench, Sastha Temple Road, Kaloor,
Cochin - 682 017. .... Respondents
(By Advocate Mr.S.Ramesh, ACGSC)
This Original Application having been heard on 03.07.2015, this Tribunal on
11.08.2015 delivered the following:
ORDER
BY HON'BLE MR.U.SARATHCHANDRAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Applicant is a Private Secretary in the Ernakulam Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). She is aggrieved by the non-filling up of vacancies of Private Secretaries in the Tribunal (as a single entity consisting of all its Benches), strictly calculating the vacancies against the annual vacancies in the ratio of 50% selection based on seniority, 25% by Limited Departmental Competitive Examination and 25% by transfer on deputation/ absorption in accordance with the Central Administrative Tribunal Stenographers Service Group B & C posts Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 1998 and in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court. She is further aggrieved by the Tribunal following the post- based roster, adopting quota-rota rule.
2 Applicant started her career as a Lower Division Clerk in the Ministry of Home Affairs from 20.01.1982. She was promoted as Stenographer D (for short, 'steno') on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 02.12.1983 and on regular basis w.e.f. 26.06.1985. She was appointed as Steno 'D' in the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal on deputation basis w.e.f. 23.6.1989 and was absorbed there in the same grade from 19.6.1993. She was promoted as Court Master (Grade C) on 08.09.94 on ad hoc basis. Even though she had cleared the eligibility for regular appointment as Court Master much earlier she was regularised in that cadre only w.e.f. 20.12.2000. Her representation for regularising her in the grade of Court Master from an early date or at least from the date from which she had been appointed on ad hoc basis was rejected by respondent no.2. Thereupon, she approached this Tribunal with OA No. 823/2002 claiming regularisation of her appointment as Court Master in accordance with Recruitment Rules and consequential reliefs. This Tribunal vide order dt 01.03.2005 (Annexure A/1) directed the respondents to have her case considered by a review DPC for promotion to the post of Court Master in her turn with effect from the date on which she become eligible for inclusion in the zone of consideration against the vacancies of Court Master in the Tribunal as a unit irrespective of whether she had been working in the Ernakulam Bench or in any other Bench and if she is found suitable for promotion to the post of Court Master with effect from a date on which her juniors, i.e. Steno Grade D having lesser length of service than her having promoted prior to her, to promote her from that date and notionally fix her pay and seniority accordingly.
3 Applicant states that in the purported compliance of the Annexure A/1 order respondent No.2 vide Anenxure A/2 order dt. 23.2.2006 regularised the promotion granted to applicant w.e.f. 01.10.94 but her seniority on par with persons having lesser length of service than her had not been revised though it was so directed in Annexure A/1 order. Later, she was promoted as Private Secretary on regular basis vide Annexure A/3 order dt 12.11.08 and posted her in the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal. As she had not been assigned the seniority on the basis of her regular service in the grade of Steno D and Court Master as directed by this Tribunal in Annexure A/1 order, she made Annexure A/4 & A/5 representations. Annexure A/4 representation was rejected vide Annexure A/6 reply. The relevant portion of Annexure A/6 reply by the Deputy Registrar (Estt.) of the Principle Bench of the Tribunal reads as under:
'She became eligible for promotion to the post of Private Secretary as per RRs, after rendering 8 years of regular service in the grade of Court Master, however, by attaining eligibility the individual has no right to get promotion on such completion itself as other aspects such as vacancy position and reservations etc. are to be looked into.
The DPC recommended her promotion for the post of Private Secretary based on the vacancy position as it existed then. Prior to 9.2.2005 there were 81 sanctioned posts in the grade of Private Secretary in CAT. Consequent upon up-gradation of 16 posts of Private Secretaries as Principal Private Secretaries sanctioned posts of Private Secretaries became 65 and out of these only 33 posts can be filled by promotion. Due to up-gradation of 16 posts, filled up vacancies under this mode of recruitment exceeds by six (06) as against the prescribed quota of 33 since at that relevant time total filled up vacancies under this mode of recruitment was 39. These 6 PSs were adjusted against the vacancies arising in the next years. In the year 2006 still there was 1 excess PS which was adjusted in the 2007. After diverting the vacancies from other mode of recruitment, the promotion was made to the post of Private Secretary by the DPC on recommendations of which Smt. Raji Vijayan is promoted as PS. Moreover, while inviting objection to draft seniority list issued by the office in the grade of Court Master, Smt.Vijayan had filed her objection that her name should be shown above Vinita Virmani by taking into account her past service rendered in the parent department. The said objection was considered at the level of the Hon'ble Chairman and rejected on the ground that Smt. Vinita Virmani was appointed on regular basis as Steno 'D' in CAT w.e.f. 20.04.1989 whereas Smt. Raji Vijayan was absorbed as Steno 'D' w.e.f. 19.06.1993 therefore in the feeder grade Smt. Vijayan cannot be senior to Smt. Vinita Virmani and the same order of seniority has to be maintained for promotion to the higher grade of Court Master. Accordingly, a final seniority list of Court Master was issued showing her junior to Smt. Vinita Virmani.
In this view of the matter, representation of Smt. Raji Vijyan, PS, CAT, Allahabad Bench is not tenable as she has been rightly given promotion to the grade of PS.'
4 Applicant alleges that as Annexure A/6 letter makes it clear that respondents have been adopting a post- based roster for filling up of the vacancies that had arisen in the cadre of Private Secretaries after 1998. It is also alleged that the respondents have been keen to fill up all the vacancies only through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). According to applicant, filling up of vacancies on post-based roster is erroneous and is resulting in substantial injustice to the Court Masters like the applicant. She states that the authority should adopt a vacancy-based roster from 1998 onwards and recalculate the 50% quota vacancies year after year from 1998 and on that basis applicant should have been promoted as Private Secretary from the date on which her actual promotion fell due.
5 According to the applicant, when a draft seniority list was circulated on 07.09.10 as she was placed at the same position without giving effect to the direction given in Annexure A/1 order, she submitted A/7 representation. However, without reckoning Annexure A/7 representation, Annexure A/8 final seniority list was published assigning seniority to the applicant at Srl.No.52 indicating that seniority list of officers at S.No.1 to 50 is already finalised. Thereafter on 11.02.13, yet another draft seniority list up to 31.12.12 of Private Secretaries (Annexure A/9) was circulated wherein the applicant is shown to have been regularised in the post of Court Master w.e.f. 01.09.94 but a large number of persons regularised in the post of Court Master after the applicantb�s regularisation as per Annexure A/1 order have been promoted earlier than the applicant. Aggrieved by this, applicant submitted A/10 representation. It was rejected by the Principal bench of the Tribunal vide Annexure A/11 impugned in this OA. It reads:
'I am to refer to your letter No.4/11/1/89-Admn. dated 20.05.2013 on the above mentioned subject and to inform you that in the draft seniority list of Private Secretary issued on 11.02.2013, it has already been clarified that seniority list of officers from S.No.1 to 42 have already been finalized vide letter No. PB/7/1/2010-Estt.I dated 29.11.2010. As name of Smt. Raji Vijayan in the said draft seniority list is at Sl.No.40, she should not raise any objection with regard to her placement as she has already been granted appropriate seniority by the erstwhile final seniority after considering her previous representations on the subject and attained finality so far as her case is concerned.
Further, as per the existing Recruitment Rules of Stenographers in CAT as notified on 31.12.1998, Method of recruitment is based on percentage of posts and not vacancy based. In Col.11 it is clearly indicated that method of recruitment by direct recruitment or by promotion or by deputation/ absorption and percentage of posts to be filled by various methods. Thus, the appointment as per post based roster made in the grade of PS in CAT keeping in view the existing RRs are in order. Moreover, the OM No. AB.14017/2/1997-Estt.(RR)/Pt. dated 19.01.2007 issued by the Govt. in pursuance of the judgment of Apex Court in CWP No. 5893/97 (State of Punjab & Others vs. Dr.R.N.Bhatnagar & another) providing for incorporating the number of vacancies in the method of Recruitment has been made effective from the date of issue i.e. 19.01.2007 with stipulation that past cases may not be reopened. Accordingly, the averment made in the representation by Smt. Raji Vijayan for making appointment on vacancy based since 1998 are not found tenable by the Competent Authority. Individual concerned may be informed accordingly. Yours faithfully, Sd/-
(L.R.Sharda) Deputy Registrar (Estt.) 6 Applicant points out that it is evident from Annexure A/1 that the Private Secretaries at S.No. 21, 22, 24 to 30 and 35 to 38 were promoted in the LDCE quota during the years 2000, 2003, 2004 and 2005 and that after 1.1.99, five Private Secretaries were appointed on the basis of LDCE in 2003 and six persons were similarly appointed by LDCE in 2004, without making any corresponding appointment under the promotion quota. Applicant contends that the persons who are juniors to the applicant had been given promotion as Private Secretary by virtue of the wrong action of the authorities in not granting absorption to the applicant at the appropriate time on the ground of non availability of vacancy and refusal on the part of the respondents to absorb the applicant in the post of Stenographer Grade D, which had adversely affected the further promotion to the post of Court Master and Private Secretary and therefore, is opposed to the equality clauses enshrined in Articles 14 and
16. 7 Respondents filed a reply statement admitting that they have been following a post-based roster in terms of Annexure A/13 Recruitment Rules of 1998. They reiterate the statements in Annexure A/6 and A/11 replies rejecting the representations of the applicant relating to her promotion and seniority. It is also stated by the respondents that what they have done was in accordance with the recruitment rules prevailing at the relevant time and that a vacancy shall be filled in accordance with rules in force on the date unless rules made subsequently have expressly given retrospective effect. Therefore respondents contend that the appointment/ promotion so far made by them on post-based roster are in order. Respondents further state that in compliance with Annexure A/1 order of this tribunal the applicant was granted promotion w.e.f. 01.10.1994 and that above promotion of the applicant as reflected in the final seniority list has not been challenged by the applicant before any legal forum and hence it has become binding on her. Applicant has not clearly mentioned any specific name as the person promoted earlier than her. Further, promotion to the post of Court Master given to Shri Santosh Kumar and Smt. S.Sarala Devi who are junior to the applicant is by virtue of Rule of Reservation as both of them belong to SC category.
8. Referring to Annexure R/1 OM issued by the DoPT on 19.01.2007 in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Dr.R.N.Bhatnagar and another (1999) 2 SCC 330, directing all Ministries/ Departments to amend Column 11 of the Recruitment Rules to make recruitment vacancy-based, respondents state that para 9 of the aforesaid OM makes it clear that the past cases would not be reopened.
9. According to respondents, the vacancies in the grade of Private Secretaries were filled up as per the existing recruitment rules which provide for filling up 50% of the post by promotion, 25% on the basis of LDCE and 25% by deputation/ absorption. When the promotion to the grade of Private Secretary had exceeded the 50% quota by diverting the vacancies meant for LDCE, the same were later adjusted by conducting LDCE to fill up the latter vacancies. It is further stated by the respondents that proposal to amend recruitment rules as per the directions of the Apex Court has been forwarded to the Government for notification. Therefore, according to respondents Annexure A/1 is not discriminatory. According to respondents, applicant had been given the due position in the seniority list of Private Secretary based on her promotion on the basis of the recommendation of DPC. Respondents pray for dismissing the OA.
10. A rejoinder was filed by the applicant stating that on completion of 8 years of service w.e.f. 1.10.1994 she became eligible on 30.09.2002 for being considered for promotion as Private Secretary w.e.f. 01.10.2002. The vacancy of Private Secretary that had arisen after 01.10.2002 had not been filled up applying the vacancy-based roster for the quota rota rule. Even after the averments in the reply statement, a minimum of six vacancies had arisen during 2006 and 2007 in the cadre of Private Secretaries and the respondents ought not have adopted post-based roster and they should have followed only vacancy-based roster. The applicant contend that Dr. R.N.Bhatnagar's case (supra) is binding upon all judicial and executive authorities and that it will have impact on the administrative rules and instructions on the subject. Therefore, respondents ought to have read the word 'posts' as 'vacancies' and therefore the proposed amendment to be carried out as per Annexure R/2 instructions is of little significance.
11. We have heard Mr.T.C.Govindaswamy, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Ramesh, learned ACGSC in extenso. In addition to Dr.R.N.Bhatnagar's case, Shri T.C.Govindaswamy referred to two decisions of this Tribunal i.e the order dt. 12.08.2005 in OA No. 6/2004 and the order dt. 31.10.2011 in OA No. 103/2011. Learned counsel for respondents produced copies of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Senior Principal Private Secretary) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2013 and the Central Administrative Tribunal Stenographers Service (Group 'B' and 'C' Posts) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2013 notified in the Gazette of India on 24.02.2014. 12 Grievance of the applicant is essentially centred on the mode in which recruitment to the post of Private Secretaries has been made by the respondents. According to respondents, they have filled up the posts as per the Annexure A/13 Recruitment Rules of 1998 which was the then extant Recruitment Rules. Respondents further state that they were obliged to fill up the posts in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in force unless the rules made subsequently have been expressly given retrospective effect. On the other hand, the applicant is relying on the decision of Dr. R.N.Bhatnagar's case by the Apex Court which clearly rules post-based rosters for vacancies to be filled from different sources of recruitment is unconstitutional and is violation of the equality provisions contained in Article 16(1) of the Constitution. Prior to Dr.R.N.Bhatnagar the law governing the field was as laid down by the Constitution Bench decision of Apex Court in R.K.Sabharwal v. State of Punjab (1995) 2 SCC 745. In that case, the Supreme Court held that reservation of posts for SCs and STs and Backward classes as per the Constitutional scheme of reservation shall be post-based. It appears that R.K.Sabharwal has found its reflections in para 11 of the Annexure A/13 Recruitment Rules also which prescribe post-based recruitment for filling up the 'posts'. Later, in Dr.R.N.Bhatnagar's case the principle laid down in R.K.Sabharwal was distinguished. The Supreme Court in Dr.R.N.Bhatnagar observed pithly:
'e It has, therefore, to be appreciated that when posts in a cadre are to be filled in from two sources, whether the candidate comes from the source of departmental promotees or by way of direct recruitment, once both of them enter a common cadre, their birthmarks disappear and they get completely integrated in te common cadre. This would be in consonance with the thrust of Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. No question of exception to the said general thrust of the constitutional provision would survive as Article 16(4) would be out of the picture in such a case. Consequently, the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench in R.K.Sabharwal case in connection with Article 16(4) and the operation of roster for achieving the reservation of posts for SCs, STs and BCs as per the scheme of reservation cannot be pressed into service for the present scheme of Rule 9 (1) is not as per Article 16(4) but is governed by the general sweep of Article 16(1). The attempt of learned counsel for the respondent to treat a quota rule as a reservation rule would result in requiring the State authorities to continue the birthmarks of direct recruits and promotes even after they enter the common cadre through two separate entry points regulating their induction to the cadre. Therefore, the roster for 3 promotees and one direct recruit is to be continued every time a vacancy arises and there is no question of filling up a vacancy arising out of a retirement of a direct recruit by a direct recruit or on the retirement vacancy of a promotee by a promotee. Consequently, the question of rotating the vacancies as posts or for treating the posts mentioned in the rules of recruitment as necessarily referable to total posts in the cadre at a given point of time in the light of R.K.Sabharwal judgment, therefore, cannot survive for in the case of a quota rule between direct recruits and promotees, the same is to be judged on the touchstone of Article 16(1) and the statutory rules governing the recruitment to the posts of Professor constituting the Punjab Medical Education Service (Class I) and not on the basis of Article 16(4). The Division Bench in the impugned judgment with respect wrongly applied the ratio of R.K.Sabharwal case governing Article 16(4) to the facts of the present case which are governed by Article 16(1).' The above legal position has been followed by this Tribunal also in order dt. 12.08.2005 in OA No.6/2005 (S.P.Rajendran and Ors. V. U.O.I. and Ors ) this Tribunal observed:
'7. It is evident from the above observations of the Apex Court that they have made a clear distinction between the reservation under Article 16(4) and the scope of Article 16(1) of the Constitution which guarantees equality of opportunity in the matter of appointment in Government service to all citizens of India. This position was further confirmed in the second judgment referred to by the applicants i.e. All India Federation of Central Excise vs. Union of India & Others in which the Indian Customs and Central Excise Service Group -A (Amendment )Rules, 1988 providing for 6:1:2 quota for promotion to Group-A from Supdts. Excise, Supdts. Customs and Appraisers came up for interpretation before the Court. Here again the petitioners had relied upon R.K. Sabharwal case and the observation therein that such reservation has to be on the principle of b�post basedb� in order to ensure the special provision of Article 335 of the Constitution relating to adequate number of SC/ST in the services. On the other hand the Court observed that so far as the normal quota-rota rule between two feeder channels of recruitment for their promotion between direct recruitment and promotees or promotion quota between different feeder cadres, the relevant portion of the decision in Paranjit Singh Sandhu and Others vs. Ram Ragha and others, State of Punjab vs. Dr.R.N.Bhatnagar would apply. They pointed out the observations in Paranjit Singh's case as follows:
'What this Court meant while saying that when a quota rule is prescribed for recruitment to a cadre it meant that quota should be co-related to the vacancies which are to be filled in. Who retired and from what source he was recruited may not be very relevant because retirement from service may not follow the quota rule '
8. The sum and substance of the above observations of the Apex Court is that there is a clear distinction between the scheme of reservation as enunciated in Sabharwal case and the system of quota between two feeder channels and whenever vacancies occur, the appointing authority should go on recruiting according to the quota and it was not permissible to treat any vacancy as a vacancy earmarked to the category to which the retiree belonged before being promoted to the post. Hence the ratio of the judgment is that once recruitment is made from two channels the identity of the person get merged and the posts cannot be treated as reserved for any category'.
A similar view was taken by this Tribunal in the order dt . 31.10.2014 in OA No. 103/2011 ( Binu S.Panicker v. U.O.I. and others ).
13. Thus one can see that the legal position regarding the mode in which recruitment has to be made when candidates from different sources are considered has been clearly laid down in Dr. R.N.Bhatnagar's case in unambiguous terms that such recruitment shall be made not for the post but for the vacancies that arise. Admittedly, respondents have not been following the vacancy-based recruitment on the premise that Annexure A/13 Recruitment Rules of 1998 permitted them to do so. 14 It is pertinent to note that the judgment of Apex Court in Dr.R.N.Bhatnagar's case was pronounced on 18.12.1998. However, Annexure A/13 recruitment rules were notified in the Gazette of India only on 31.12.1998. Therefore, it is obvious that the Annexure A/13 recruitment rules of 1998, especially Column 11 of it, contained provisions contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Bhatnagar's case that recruitment for posts with candidates from different sources shall be made not post- based but should be vacancy-based.
15. Article 141 of the Constitution of India states that law declared by the Supreme Court of India shall be binding on all courts and Tribunals of India. We are of the view that the aforesaid constitutional provision under Article 141 is equally applicable to all administrative departments and other government establishments. Therefore the contention of the respondents that they were recruiting/ promoting officials to the post of Private Secretaries based on the 'post' available and not on the basis of 'vacancies' that arose is violative of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
16. It was contended by the respondents that the grievances on her promotions of the applicant were not challenged in time. It was also stated by the respondents that Annexure-R/1 instructions issued by respondent No.1 directing to amend column 11 of the recruitment rules had specifically instructed not to re-open the past cases. However, in our view, since the contention of the applicant in this OA is based on question of law ie. the applicability of Dr.Bhatnagar's decision on the recruitment rules notified thereafter, it can be raised at any time.
17. We take note that the respondent No.1 had issued Annexure R/1 OM directing the respondents to effect amendments of column 11 of the Recruitment Rule in the light of the Supreme Court judgment in Dr.R.N.Bhatnagar's case. Though the Supreme Court decided Bhatnagar's case on 18.12.1998, it took nearly 8 years for the first respondent to issue Annexure-R/1 instructions to make amendments in Column 11 of the recruitment rules to substitute 'vacancies' in the place 'posts'. A perusal of Annexure R/1 shows that till Dr.Bhatnagar decision, the law the department following was as laid down in the Sabharwal decision. In the reply statement it is stated that steps had been taken by the Respondents No.2 & 3 to amend the recruitment rules in terms of the directions contained in Annexure R/1 OM. But the amended recruitment rules have been brought into effect by Annexure MA/1 Gazette Notification only on 24.12.2014 - 7 years after Annexure-R/1 administrative instructions. It took about 15 years for the authorities to set aright the flaw in the recruitment rules, after the Dr.Bhatnagar judgement.
18. One can understand that making amendments in the recruitment rules is a time consuming process as it requires exchange of communications between the establishment concerned and various Government Departments including first respondent and the legislative department of the Government of India. Nevertheless, in view of the provision of the Article 141 of the Constitution of India, it was the duty of all concerned to give effect to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Dr.Bhatnagar's case. Respondents cannot take shelter behind the contention that they have been following the post-based roster in view of the extant recruitment rules because Article 141 of the Constitution of India has a supervening effect over all other laws and statutory rules. This is all the more so, especially when the provisions in column 11 of Annexure-A/13 rules had become illegal as it was notified after the pronouncement of Dr.Bhatnagar judgement by the Supreme Court. This imbroglio could be remedied by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by a adopting a simple step i.e. to treat the word 'post' in column 11 of Annexure A/13 as 'vacancy'. Having not done so, we are constrained to hold that the action taken by the respondent nos.2 and3 in filling up the vacancies of Private Secretaries on a post-based roster was illegal and contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court. Therefore, the contentions of the respondents in this regard are unsustainable in toto.
19. It is stated by the respondents that some of the juniors of the applicant were given promotion much earlier than applicant because they are members of SCs/STs and hence they were granted promotion in the posts reserved for them. We do not find any illegality in granting accelerated promotions to the members belonging to SC/ST. However, with regard to promotions made to the six vacancies during the year 2006 and 2007 respondents contend that as excess promotions had been granted from 'promotion' quota the same had to be adjusted with the quota for 'LDCE' candidates and hence by way of adjustment of vacancies some of the postings were made by LDCE. Applicant points out that the officials at Sl.No. 21, 22, 24 to 30 and 35 to 38 in Annexure A/12 seniority list were promoted in LDCE quota. These promotions (except in the cases of SC/ST) and adjustments were made by the respondents on the basis of the post-based roster rather than the vacancy-based roster as per the requirements of the law laid down in Dr.Bhatnagar's case.
20. In the light of the above discussion, we direct the official respondents to consider the case of the applicant by convening a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) which selected the applicant for promotion as Private Secretary vide Annexure A/3 to review and consider afresh her selection on the vacancy-based roster with effect from the date on which she became eligible on her turn for inclusion in the zone of consideration for the vacancies of Private Secretary in the Central Administrative Tribunal taken as a single unit. If she is found suitable for promotion to the post of Private Secretary with effect from the date on which her juniors i.e. Court Masters having lesser period of service than applicant were promoted, she shall be promoted with effect from that date and notionally fix her pay and seniority accordingly. It is made clear that there is no order to pay arrears of pay to the applicant in cash, but the pay fixation so done shall have a reflection of the annual increments accrued during the interregnum on the last pay drawn at the time when she retires from service on superannuation. (We are told by the counsel that the applicant is retiring in September, 2015). It is further made clear that during the aforesaid exercise, if any of the employees are found to be affected, respondents shall give due notice to them and hear such persons before re-fixing the seniority. The above directions shall be complied with and necessary orders shall be issued by the competent authority of the respondents within 2 months from the date of receipt/ presentation of a copy of this order.
21. Ordered accordingly. No order as to costs.
(Dated, this the 11th day of August, 2015)
P.GOPINATH U.SARATHCHANDRAN
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
jm