Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Vide notification dated 30 July 2009 (Annexure A-9) as many as 144 group A officers were granted NFSG in the pay band IV with grade pay of Rs.8700/-. This grant of NFSG was made subject to out come of certain Court cases pending before some Tribunal/Court. The applicant, not having found his name in the aforesaid Annexure A-9 notification, moved Annexure A-11 representation and requested for awarding of NFSG on adhoc basis. This was followed by representation dated 07.10.09 vide Annexure A-12. As therewas no response, the applicant has moved this O.A seeking the following reliefs.

(iii) To grant such other relief or reliefs which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case;
(iv) To award the cost of these proceedings to the applicant.

3. Respondents have contested the Original Application. They have stated that the applicant was promoted to Group A service vide office order No. 225/95 dated 19.10.1995. Vide Board office Notification No.01/2010 dated 19.01.2010 the applicant was granted non functional selection grade. As regards non- consideration of the application for NFSG vide Annexure A-9, the respondents have stated that it was decided in principle to consider grant of NFSG as per 2005 seniority list of Group A IRS (C&CE). There were 149 additional posts which could be operated as on 01.01.2009 at Additional Commissioner level. Since grant of Non-Functional Selection Grade is vacancy based, it was decided to consider eligible officers up to 1995 Batch for grant of Non-Functional Selection grade against the 149 vacancies available as on 01.01.2009 by holding a Departmental Screening Committee. It may be stated that seniority list of Group A IRS (C&CE) 2005 contains both Direct Recruited and promotee officers regularized up to panel year 1996. The applicant did not find place among the officers regularised up to panel year 1996. Therefore, he does not figure in 2005 seniority list. He may be placed in subsequent panel year as and when the regularisation of officer is taken up by the department with UPSC for drawing up subsequent panel years. He was junior to officers who were to be considered by the DSC held on 20.07.2009 & 22.07.2009. Accordingly, his name was not placed before the Departmental Screening Committee for consideration for grant of NFSG. Cases of eligible officers who were senior to the applicant belonging to 1994 & 1995 Batches only, as per the seniority list of Group A IRA (C&CE) 2005, were placed before the Departmental Screening Committee held on 20.07.2009 & 22.07.2009. Later, a Departmental Screening Committee (DSC) was convened on 07.01.2010 to consider 1996 Batch, DR of 1997 batch and promotee officers who had completed 13 years in Group A as on 01.01.2010 and were in JAG. The applicant has completed 13 years of service in Group A and was eligible as per this criteria, his case was placed before the Departmental Screening Committee held on 07.01.2010 and accordingly he was granted Non-Functional Selection Grade vide Notification No.1/2010 dated 19.01.2010.

4. The applicant has filed his rejoinder in which he has stated that the seniority of Group A officers being under dispute, all the officers who had rendered qualifying service should have been considered by the DPC.

5. Counsel for the applicant vehementally argued that as per the civil list (Annexure A-20) the applicant's name figures in at serial No.135 and he has not been awarded NFSG though he was eligible. Instead the respondents have promoted a number of Group A officers who are comparitively junior to the applicant. The applicant's position in the seniority could be anywhere between 1995 or even earlier. And since he has already retired, in the event of his being granted NFSG along with others in the Annexure A-9 list he would gain one increment and nothing else. He has also submitted that whereas under RTI Act, information provided for by the respondents indicated 150 posts, admittedly NFSG was conferred upon only 144 officers.

8. If the applicant could not come with the consideration zone which is based on 30% of the posts (149vacancies) non consideration of his case for NFSG would not amount to violation of the right for consideration. As per the respondents those who have been offered NFSG are all junior to the applicant. The applicants initial appointment in Group A in 1995 being only provisional, the exact date from which he was regularly positioned in Group A post has not been spelt out by the applicant. The applicant already has been granted NFSG with effect from 2010.