Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ravi Kumar Jain vs Delhi Cooprative Housing Finance ... on 9 September, 2024
1
Item No.31/ C-3 OA .2048/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 2048/2019
This the 9th Day of September, 2024
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K Gupta, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Ravi Kumar Jain, Aged- 58 Years,
Group 'B'
S/o Sh. S.K.Jain, Working as Accounts Officer
in Delhi Co-Operative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.,
3/6, Siri Fort Institutional Area, August Kranti Marg,
New Delhi-49
R/o Flat No.643, Veer Apartments, Plot 28,
Sector 13, Rohini, Delhi-85
...Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
Versus
1. Delhi Co-operative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
3/6, Siri Fort Institutional Area,
August Kranti Marg, New Delhi-49
2. General Manager,
Delhi Co-Operative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.,
3/6, Siri Fort Institutional Area,
August Kranti Marg, New Delhi-49
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Bijnder Singh Sharma)
2
Item No.31/ C-3 OA .2048/2019
ORDER (ORAL)
By Hon'ble Ms. Pratima K Gupta, Member (J):-
The applicant was initially appointed as Accountant on 01.03.1985. The respondents adopted the promotional policy on 14.11.1995. In light of said policy every regular/contractual employee was eligible to be considered for promotion to next higher pay scale after every five years of service in the existing grade. The last promotion extended to the applicant was on 01.07.2003, thereafter, in terms of the said policy he was entitled to be considered for promotion on 01.07.2008 and 01.07.2013. However, the DPC was not held for the reason that in between a dispute arose whether the respondents would proceed with the promotion policy of the respondents or modified Assured Carrier Promotion Scheme of the Central Government. Similarly placed persons challenged the said issue before this Tribunal in OA No. 280/2014 decided on 11.07.2014 wherein this Tribunal had confirmed that the promotional policy would be continued to be operation with the respondents. This decision was confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. No. 1343/2015 with certain modifications. After the said decision, the respondents conducted DPC to extend in-situ promotion in light of the promotion policy w.e.f. 01.07.2008 and 01.07.2013 3 Item No.31/ C-3 OA .2048/2019 respectively. The DPC was held on 26.10.2016 and promotion order was issued on 24.11.2016 however, the cause of the applicant was ignored for the reason that the applicant was proceed departmentally by way of a chargesheet on 17.10.2016 which culminated into major penalty vide order dated 01.11.2019. The applicant preferred a representation seeking promotion in light of the promotional policy w.e.f 01.07.2008 and 01.07.2013 respectively. However, the respondents chosen not to respond to these representations.
The applicant sought certain information under the RTI Act 2005 with respect to the reasons for not consideration his case for promotion. The RTI reply has been responded by the respondents wherein the reasons for non consideration of his case was the pendency of the chargesheet dated 17.10.2016 and penalty order dated 01.11.2019. Aggrieved by the same the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:-
"(1) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing all the decisions taken by the respondents on file notings by which the request of the applicant for considering his promotion from due date i.e. w.e.f. 01.07.2008 and w.e.f. 01.07.2013 has been rejected and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for his in-situ promotions in the grade pay of Rs.7600/-
w.e.f. 01.07.2008 and in the grade pay of Rs.8700/- w.e.f. 01.07.2013 by taking into account the 4 Item No.31/ C-3 OA .2048/2019 vigilance clearance of the applicant as on 01.07.2008 and as on 01.07.2013 without considering the charge sheet dated 17.10.2016 with all consequential benefits including the arrears of difference of pay and allowances.
(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant with the costs of litigation."
2. The learned counsel for the applicant points out that the DPC for consideration of similarly placed persons was held on 26.10.2011 and 24.11.2016 for extending in-situ promotion w.e.f. 01.07.2008 and 01.05.2013 and on the said date that is the effective date of promotion there was no impediment for consideration the cause of the applicant, therefore, the applicant could not be deprived for the in-situ promotion for relevant dates. He draws attention to page 30 of the OA wherein the respondents have confirmed the entitlement and eligibility of the applicant form the said date. After issuing of chargesheet the applicant approached this Tribunal in OA No. 1885/2019 wherein he sought expeditious disposal of the chargesheet. This OA was disposed of vide order dated 04.07.2019 and in compliance of the said order the impugned communication was passed.
3.1 Learned counsel for respondents vehemently opposes the present OA. He draws attention to the clause 4.7.3 of the promotional policy and submits that in light of the said clause 5 Item No.31/ C-3 OA .2048/2019 since there was a chargesheet pending against the applicant on the date when the DPC met, the applicant could not be considered for promotion. The clause of the "Clause 4.7.3 of Policy of DCHFC An employee who has been punished for mis-
conduct will be debarred from consideration for promotion for a period of one year from the date of punishment become effective. Similarly, employees who are under suspension or facing enquiries for mis-conduct shall not be considered for promotion till the disposal of the cases. However, in all cases in which an employee who is not considered by DPC because of a departmental enquiry or having been placed under suspension is later exonerated of all charges and the subsequent DPC finds him fit for promotion, he/she will be given the higher pay scale retrospectively with the arrears of pay from the date it would have been granted had the departmental enquiry or suspension not intervened."
3.2 Learned counsel for respondents further submits that another chargesheet was issued to the applicant on 19.02.2021.
4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties carefully and perused the records of the case thoroughly. 4.2 The precise issue in the present OA is that the applicant who was entitled to be considered for promotion in light of the promotional policy w.e.f. 01.07.2008 and 01.07.2013. Admittedly, the DPCs were met on 26.10.2016 and 24.11.2016 considering the promotion to the juniors of the 6 Item No.31/ C-3 OA .2048/2019 applicant for promotion in light of the promotion policy as reflected on page 31 of the OA. Therefore, on the date the DPC for consideration of promotion may be held subsequently and the reasons explained the pendency of the OA 280/2014 and subsequent Writ Petition No. 1343/2015 clearly explains but for the said litigation the DPC would have been held on time and the applicant would have been considered for promotion from the effective dates. According to us, DPC since was held on 26.10.2016 and 24.11.2016 were in fact with respect to promotions from 01.07.2008 and 01.07.2013 were in fact should have been held at the relevant point of time and on the date when the promotions were to be extended, there was nothing against the applicant that could have been impediment to be considered for promotion. More so, to clarify the chargesheet was issued on 17.10.2016 and the punishment order dated 01.11.2019 both are subsequent dates on the relevant dates 01.07.2008 and 01.07.2013 there was nothing against the applicant.
4.3 For the reasons explained hereinabove, we have no hesitation in concluding that the applicant deprived by the respondents by not considering him for promotion in the DPCs held on 26.10.2016 and 14.11.2016. Accordingly, the OA is allowed. The respondents are directed to convene a 7 Item No.31/ C-3 OA .2048/2019 review DPC for the dates 26.10.2016 and 14.11.2016 and if the applicant found fit for extending promotion w.e.f. 01.07.2008 and 01.07.2013 respectively, along with all consequential benefits on notional basis. However, on actual bases from three years, prior to the filing of this OA. The aforesaid exercise shall be complied with within the period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
5. The OA is disposed of in the above manner. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Chhabilendra Roul) (Pratima K Gupta)
Member (A) Member (J)
/daya/