Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(c) Any other appropriate order or direction, which may be considered just and proper in the light of above, may kindly be issued in favour of the applicant.

(d) Costs of the application may kindly be awarded in favour of the applicant.

2. Brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, are that the applicant was initially appointed as Data Processing Assistant (DPA) in the year 1997. After completion of 12 years service in April, 2009, he was not allowed the benefit of ACP. In the seniority list of DPA Grade-A circulated in the year 1999 showing status of the employees as on 1.9.1999 (Ann.A/3), name of the applicant was placed at Sl.No.2 and date of entry in the department was shown as 28.4.1997. The incumbent placed at Sl.No.1, Shri R.S.Rana, was promoted as DPA Grade-B and he was further promoted from to the post of DPA Grade-B to Assistant Director (System) on 6.6.2005. In this manner, the applicant holding the seniority at No.1 in the cadre DPA Grade-A got accrued a right of consideration against vacant post of DPA Grade-B in view of promotion of the holder of the post. The applicant has also filed representations to the respondents raising his grievances. The applicant further stated that he was awaiting for promotion or the benefit of ACP, but the respondent No.2 vide impugned seniority list dated 20.10.2009 released revised seniority list of DPA Grade-A showing status regarding seniority of the cadre of DPA Grade-A on 1.1.2009. In the revised seniority list (Ann.R-3/2), applicant is pushed down to No. 2. and respondent No.3, Shri Kashi Nath Purohit was placed at No.1. The applicant raised objection to this seniority submitting that respondent No.3 Shri Kashi Nath Purohit entered in the respondent department as UDC on 6.2.1978 and was enjoying the seniority position amongst the UDCs and was included in the seniority list of UDC till he was adsorbed as DPA Grade-A on 24.3.2000. Now the respondents allowed even the benefit of the seniority to respondent No.3 from 30.11.1995 when he was substantially holding and enjoying all the benefits as admissible to UDC. The respondents rejected representation of the applicant vide communication dated 6.11.2009 in which reference of Rule 4 of the Recruitment Rules has been made. Therefore, aggrieved of the action of the respondents, the applicant has filed the present OA praying for the reliefs as mention in para-1 above.

4. Head learned counsel for the parties. Counsel for applicant contended that the applicant was selected on the post of DPA Grade-A on 20.4.1997 and he was not granted MACP w.e.f. 1.9.2008. The respondent department published a seniority list Ann.A/3 in which the applicant was shown at Sl.No.2 and Shri R.S.Rana was reflected at Sl.No.1. In Ann.A/3 name of respondent No.3 Shri Kashi Nath Purohit does not appear because he was not working at Data Processing Assistant Grade-A as on 1.9.1999. After that Shri R.S.Rana got his promotion as DPA Grade-A and as Assistant Director (Systems) therefore, the applicant stood at Sl.No.1 of the seniority list, because Shri Kashi Nath, although entered in service in 1978, but he was holding the post of DPA Grade-A from the year 2000. The respondent department abruptly issued letter Ann.A/1 denying the applicant seniority at Sl.No.1 and showing Shri Kashi Nath senior to the applicant. Therefore, the counsel for the applicant contended that Ann.A/1 cannot be said to be a legal order because the respondent department mis-interpreted Rule 4 of the Recruitment Rules, which is in the following terms:-

4. Initial constitution.- (1) All Data Processing Assistant Grade A (appointed by the Department during the period November, 195 to May, 2003)/ existing Programme Assistant/ Console Operator working on regular basis on the date of notification of the rules shall be deemed to have been appointed as Data Processing Assistant Grade A in accordance with the provisions of these rules and the previous regular services rendered by them shall be counted for all purposes including seniority.

(2) All Data Processing Assistant Grade B (appointed by the Department during the period November, 1995 to May, 2003) on regular basis on the date of notification of the rules shall be deemed to have been appointed as Data Processing Assistant Grade B in accordance with the provisions of these rules and the previous regular services rendered by them shall be counted for all purposes including seniority. He further contended that under Rule 4 of the Recruitment Rules, 2008 only a person, who has rendered regular service is entitled to have his service counted for all purposes including seniority whereas respondent No.3 has not rendered regular service, as he was on deputation as Console Operator. Therefore, by mis-interpretation of Rule 4, the applicant has been wrongly denied and thus, Ann.A/1 requires to be set-aside. Counsel for the applicant further contended that benefit of experience can be provided to respondent No.3 but the period of deputation cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority and promotion.