Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Mrs. Neena Chopra vs Uoi Etc.); on 13 August, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A.No.378-CH-2012 Pronounced on: 13.08.2013
Reserved on : 31.07.2013
CORAM: HONBLE MR. RANBIR SINGH, MEMBER (A) &
HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J)
Mrs. Neena Chopra, aged 53 years W/o Sh. Amrit Chopra, presently working as Programme Officer, Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Scheme, Department of Social Welfare, Chandigarh.
Applicant
By : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate.
1.Union of India through Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Women and Child Development, New Delhi.
2.Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration through its Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Chandigarh Administration, U.T. Civil Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
3.Director, Department of Social Welfare, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh.
By: Mr. Deepak Agnihotri, Counsel for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Arvind Moudgil, Counsel for Respondents No.2&3.
Respondents
O R D E R
HONBLE RANBIR SINGH , MEMBER (A) It is contended in the Original Application that the applicant is working as a Programme Officer in the ICDS Cell in the respondent organization since 28.1.1998. Due to non finalization of the rules, she has not been promoted to the post of Deputy Director, although as per the approved staffing pattern in the State ICDS Cell, there is a post of Deputy Director, which is lying vacant.
2. The Relief sought in this is as follows :-
(i) Directions may be issued to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for grant of promotion to the post of Deputy Director, ICDS with effect from the date the post became available and promoted her as Deputy Director, IDS Cell, with all consequential benefits as the applicant is fully eligible for the same in terms of Punjab Social Security and Development of Women and Children (Class I) Service Rules, 2000, as applicable to the Chandigarh Administration as well as draft Rules called the Integrated Child Development Services Projects, Social Welfare Department (Group A) Recruitment Rules, 2011 framed by the Chandigarh Administration.
(ii) Directions may be issued to the respondents to declare promotion of the applicant to the post of Programme Officer to be regular for all intents and purposes for the simple reason that such long spell can not be adhoc and has to be treated as regular for all intents and purposes particularly when she is eligible in terms of Punjab rules governing the post
3. The applicant contends that in the absence of statutory rules of the respondents, the rules of Punjab would be applicable. Therefore, her case for promotion should be considered as per the Punjab Rules. Reliance has also been placed on the following decision in support of her contentions that she may be promoted to the post of Deputy Director w.e.f. the date of vacancy in terms of the Punjab Social Security Development & Child Welfare Class I Service Rules, 2000 :-.
(a)Order dated 3.7.2001 of this Tribunal passed in O.A.No. 1093-CH-99 (D.P. Singh Vs. UOI etc.);
(b)Order dated 6.8.2003 passed by this Tribunal in O.A.No. 890-CH-2002 (D.P Singh Vs. UOI etc);
(c)Order dated 30.112004 of this Tribunal in O.A.No. 407-CH-2004 (Jagjit Singh Gill Vs. UOI etc.
(d)Order passed in O.A.No. 769-CH-2002, as upheld in CWP No.17551/2003 on 7.11.2003 and SLP ) No. CC 4528/2005 decided on 7.7.2004,
(e)2008 (3) SLR 832- Puran Jit Singh, former Chief Engineer.
(f)Order dated 23.1.2012 of this Tribunal in O.A.No. 903-CH-2011 and
(g)Order dated 15.3.2012 of this Tribunal in O.A.No. 22-CH-2011
4. The Respondents have filed a reply statement in which it has been contended that proposal has been sent to the Government of India for notification of the recruitment rules for the ICDS functionaries. The Administrator, UT Chandigarh is empowered to make rules which are required to be notified by the Government of India. The Government of India have not yet notified recruitment rules approved by the Administrator.
5. The applicant has filed a rejoinder in which the contentions made in O.A. have been reiterated. It is stated that the applicant cannot be kept on adhoc basis for a long time. The Punjab Rules are applicable ipso facto to the U.T. Chandigarh even without formal adoption.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings.
7. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on order dated 14.2.2013 of this Tribunal passed in O.A.No. 379-CH-2012 Ms. Jaswinder Kaur Vs. Union of India etc. in which it was held that unless a conscious decision is taken by the competent authority not to fill up a vacant post, the Punjab Rules formulation would be applicable to the UI.T. employees till such time as the U.T. has rule formulation of its own. It would be incumbent upon the competent authority to grant consideration to the applicant for purpose of regular promotion. The want of rule formulation of its own does not entitle the U.T. Administrator to defer the relevant consideration.
8. In view of the above facts, this O.A. is allowed as follows:-
The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of Deputy Director in the ICDS Cell in terms of Punjab Social Security and Development of Women & Children (Class I) Service Rules, 2000 as applicable to the Chandigarh Administration as well as draft rules called the Integrated Child Development Services Projects, Social Welfare Department (Group A) Recruitment Rules, 2011 framed by the Chandigarh Administration. Action in this regard should be completed within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
(RANBIR SINGH) MEMBER(A) (SANJEEV KAUSHIK) MEMBER (J) Place: Chandigarh Dated:13.8.2013 HC*